\o»o 



.0.0-0.0-0-0- 



o«o 



.o.o.O'Q 



i LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. | 

Shelf , O 3 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



r 



ROMAN CATHOLICISM. 



/ 



ROMAN CATHOLICISM, 



OLD AND NEW, 



FROM THE STANDPOINT OF 



THE INFALLIBILITY DOCTRINE. 



BY 

JOHN SCHULTE, D.D., Ph.D., 

BECTOB OF FORT BUBWELL, OUT., QASADA, 



NEW YORK: 
E. WORTH! NGTON, 750 BEOAD\A;aY. 

1877. 



0*° 






COPYE-IGHT, 

R WORTHINGTON, 
1876. 



PREFACE. 



WHEN fifteen years ago I left the Church of Eome, 
it was expected that I should publish to the world 
my reasons for taking that important step. However 
just these expectations may have appeared to some, I 
was compelled to disappoint them, considering that con- 
troversy is not the field for a new convert, because it is 
apt to drive him to the opposite extreme, and to lead 
him to form in haste judgments which require the most 
mature consideration. 

Besides, after the mental crisis through which I had 
passed and which lasted for some years, I felt that my 
mind needed rest, and that the anxieties of a religious 
controversy would rather disturb me in making progress 
in the cause of the truth. I still think that, instead of 
being beneficial to myself and others, it would have been 
detrimental in more than one respect. 

My Roman Catholic friends must not think that it 
was fear of possible defeat that kept me from entering 
the arena of theological strife. When I took the final 
step of leaving the Eoman communion I was fully con- 
vinced that I was doing what was right — following the 



8 Preface. 

dictates of my conscience ; I believed also that I was 
able to defend what I had done. 

But in truth the crisis was not yet over ; I was still 
battling with myself in more than one sense, and did not 
feel disposed to fight with those whom I esteemed as my 
former friends. I had passed only through the negative 
part of the crisis, throwing overboard what I considered 
erroneous in the Eoman system, and even casting aside 
the very foundation of the whole structure, I mean the 
doctrine of the infallibility of the Church. I had made 
the final plunge out of Eome, without knowing where to 
land, and I found myself in the atmosphere of Protes-^ 
tantism which from my youth up I had been taught to 
hate, and whose divisions I scorned and abominated as 
signs of a self-willed and anti-Christian spirit. Surely, 
then, I was not in a fit state of mind to enter the field 
of controversy. 

There were, besides, other powerful reasons which kept 
me in retirement. I had experienced the greatest kind- 
ness, not only from Eoman Catholics individually, but 
from the Church itself. I remembered the happy years 
I had spent in the city of Eome. Propaganda College 
was to me a quiet retreat from the turmoils and cares of 
the world, and I gratefully thought of the pains which 
my kind-hearted superiors and professors had taken with 
my education. I had a high regard for Pius IX., not 
only for his amiable and Christian qualities, but also 
for his personal kindness to me. I found in the Bishop 
and clergy of the diocese where I laboured, as priest and 
professor, sincere and attached friends. I knew that the 



Preface, 9 

step I had taken had erected, in their eyes, a painful 
barrier between us, and I was afraid that the heat of 
controversy would not only widen the breach, but 
degenerate into the bitterness and rancour of bigotry 
almost inseparable from religious polemics. With these 
feelings it is not to be wondered at that I shrank from 
the task of rushing into print and of needlessly arousing 
the ire of my former co-religionists. 

And even though I had firmly rejected Eomanism as 
such, the love of the truth often compelled me, both in 
private and public, to stand up as the champion of Eoman 
Catholics and to defend them against the unfair attacks 
and prejudices of over-zealous Protestants. For, it can- 
not be denied that, although intelligent Protestants under- 
stand the fundamental errors of Eome, yet there are many 
things in that Church which are misunderstood by the 
general Protestant public. 

My experience as layman, priest, and Divinity pro- 
fessor convinced me that all God has revealed to man- 
kind is accepted by the Church of Eome ; but my eyes 
were also opened ta the fact that, in course of time, 
revealed truths had become incrusted and obscured by 
manifold errors. In a word, I had to distinguish and 
separate the purely Boman from the purely Catholic, 
rejecting the former and adhering to the latter. 

And, in looking around me among the different 
Churches, I found that the Church of England professed 
to have followed the same process. This was the reason 
which, at that time, determined me to join her com- 
uiimion. I have laboured now, for the last thirteen years, 



10 Preface, 

as a clergyman of that Church, and have never had 
occasion to regret the step I have taken. I united my- 
seK with her also, because I thought to find there a 
greater field of employment for my past experience, 
which might enable me, in my sphere, to stem the Eome- 
ward current within her pale. But I find that this 
current is more apparent than real ; it is rather a love for 
" Gatholicism " than a tendency towards ^^Homanism" 
However, much that is contained in these pages may 
indirectly serve to correct some views and doctrines 
savouring of what I consider a mistaken Catholicism. 

I am glad now that I kept silence during these many 
years. Having lived the life both of a consistent Eoman 
Catholic and of a sincere Protestant, my experience on 
both sides, whilst it enables me to speak with mature 
judgment, entitles me also to be heard patiently by both 
parties. 

What induces me to write at the present juncture is 
that I cannot resist the controversial current of our day. 
The atmosphere of the civilized world grows heavy with 
the momentous conflict. The movement is an important 
one, and pregnant with great results. The question, 
" What is truth ?^ is re-echoed on all sides. AU who are 
able to do so, are bound to look it squarely in the face. 
The very foundations of social and religious order are at 
stake. The minimizing defence of liberal Eoman Catholics 
is here of no avail. Minimism is a vain refuge, and it 
cannot save Eomanism in the great religious crisis upon 
which we appear to be entering 



Preface, 11 

I have endeavoured to treat the whole question in its 
entirety and to present it to the public in as brief a 
compass as possible. Although since the Vatican Council 
Eoman Catholicism has been changed into popery pure 
and simple, yet I had to treat of Church-infallibility in 
all its extent, not only because it is the root of papal in- 
fallibility, but also because it is held by the liberal 
Catholics of all countries, the Old Catholics of Germany, 
and, in a modified form, though unconsciously, even by 
some Protestants. In this sense the reader will under- 
stand the title of this book. 

In writing the work I have laboured under many 
difficulties. Not only does the pastoral charge of an 
extensive parish occupy nearly all my time, distracting 
the mind from literary labours ; but living in a secluded 
part of the country I have been deprived of all access to 
good libraries for consultation. However, the few works 
I have made use of are thoroughly reliable as to accuracy. 
Besides other historical works, I have consulted "ilf^^sAem's 
Church History ^^ which is admitted to be just and fair ; 
I am indebted to that excellent work, " The Pope and the 
Council, by Janus," for many data in regard to papal 
infallibility, and have found Dr, Barrow's " Treatise on 
the Pope's Supremacy^' to be a repertory of trustworthy 
authorities. I have endeavoured to acknowledge, in the 
proper places, the assistance derived from the different 
authors of whose works I have availed myseK. 

Although I am aware of the many imperfections of 
this little book, yet I trust that it may prove useful both 



12 Preface. 

to Protestants and Eoman Catholics, for whilst T refute 
errors, I endeavour also to establish the solid foundation 
of the truth. 

J. SCHULTE. 

P(yrt Burwell, August, 1875. 



CONTENTS. 



Part I. 

TEE THEORY OF INFALLIBILITY IN REGARD TO THE 
CHURGH OF GHRIST. 

LECTURE I.— Introduction. 

The strange phenomenon which the Church of Rome presents to 
thoughtful Protestants. Reasons which induce intelligent men to 
go over to Rome. Literature of the Roman controversy ; its faults ; 
how it should be carried on. Renewal of the struggle with Rome 
in our days. The question stated. In what does Romanism not 
consist ? In what does it consist ? The doctrine of Church-infal- 
libility the essence of Romanism. Its influence on the whole 
system Connection between Church-infallibility and papal infal- 
libility Page 35 

LECTURE II. 

THE LIVING VOICE OP THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 

Attachment of the Roman Catholic to his Church. Definition of the 
Church. Inward and outward element. Preponderance of the 
external element in the Church of Rome. The Church of Christ 
infallible in the inward element. In the Roman system infallibility 
resides in the outward element, that is, in the living voice of the 
Church. What part of the Church is believed by them to be in- 
fallible, and how ? Infallibility not an inspiration but an assistance 



14 Contents. 

of the Holy Ghost. Division of the Roman Catholfe treatises on in- 
fallibility. Church infallibiKty does not meet the object for which 
it is proposed ; not self-evident ; requires to be demonstrated. 
Human demonstration cannot imbue the mind with an infallible 
faith. The Roman system essentially tainted with rationalism. The 
Bible our infallible element. The way by which we establish its 
divine authority is altogether different from that of Roman Catholics. 
First argument in favor of Church-infallibility. Did the Church 
exist prior to the Bible? « Page 45 



LECTURE III. 

CONSIDERATION OP THE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENTS IN PAVOUB 

OP INFALLIBILITY. 

Minimizing system of reducing infallibility to a central point. The 
bishops'not the successors of the Apostles ; nor the representatives 
of the Church ; therefore cannot claim infallibility. Qirculus 
vitiosics in proving the infallibility of the Church by the Bible, and 
the inspiration of the Bible by the infallible teaching of the Church. 
They cannot overcome this difficulty by considering the Bible merely 
as a book of human authority. Such argumentation leads into a 
labyrinth of doubt and uncertainty. Argument from the promises 
of Christ. The Holy Ghost operated differently with the Apostles 
and with the post- Apostolic Church. How was He with the Apostles ? 
How with the post- Apostolic Church ? Difference between certainty 
and infallibility. Certainty is all we want. Roman Catholics aim 
too high by endeavoring to give the human mind an infallible 
knowledge. Providential significance of the Bible as the only in- 
fallible element of -the Church. Office of the Church of Christ in 
relation to the Bible. The bishops of the first ages did not claim in- 
fallibility. Rise and progress of this claim. The history of the 
episcopate excludes the notion of infallibility. Statement of the 
argument drawn from the office of the Church as witness-bearer 
Fagc 55 



Contents, 15 

LECTURE IV. 

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCHES 
OFFICE AS WITNESS-BEARER. — TRADITION. 

Statement of the argument. In what does the witness -bearing of the 
Church consist ? She needs no infallibility for its faithful discharge. 
Roman Catholics, in requiring this gift, involve themselves in a maze 
of difficulties. They are compelled to admit Oral Tradition and 
endow it with infallibility, also the uncertainty of oral tradition has 
been felt from the very beginning of man's history ; hence a surer 
way was invented of handing down history to future generations. 
Writing a Providential gift of God to perpetuate His revealed truths. 
Roman Catholics concede that oral tradition has been written down. 
Roman Catholic test of truth as applied to written tradition : Quod 
semper, quod uhique, quod ah omnibus creditum est. Practical im- 
possibility of this rule ; its difficulties must overwhelm the sincere 
enquirer after truth. Nor can they solve the difficulty by saying 
that the Church performs the office of enquiry for every one. 
Circulus vitiosus in proving the infallibility of the Church by tradi- 
tion, and the infallibility of tradition by the Church. The doctrine 
of Apostolical succession cannot extricate them from this difficulty. 
The very nature of tradition compels us ta believe that God has not 
made use of it as a rule of faith. Christ inveighed against tradition. 
Analogy between the Jewish system of tradition and that of the 
Church of Rome. Analogy between the rule of faith in the O. T. 

andintheN. T Page 67 

* 
LECTURE V. 

TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS 

DRAWN FROM THE CHURCHES OFFICE AS GUARDIAN AND 
KEEPER OF THE BIBLE. 

The commission Christ gave His Apostles to preach the Gospel does 
not prove the system of oral tradition. In what sense the oral 
teaching of the Apostles would be a rule of faith. Preaching must 
be based on some depository ; we could not prove the orthodoxy of 



19 Contents. 

preaching by appealing to oral tradition ; but it is easily ascertained 
by comparing it with the Bible. Scripture proofs which seem to 
favour tradition reviewed. Arguments from the alleged insufficiency 
of Scripture considered. Catholic character of the Bible. Who has 
given us the Bible ? The Prophets and Apostles the founders of the 
Church. Can we know, without the testimony of the Church, that 
it is inspired ? Internal evidence of the inspiration of the Bible. 
External arguments. The Church as an historic society bears true 
witness of the Canon and of the inspiration of the Bible Tage 79 

LECTURE VI. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN PROM THE 
church's OFFICE AS INTERPRETER OF THE BIBLE. 

Statement of the Roman Catholic argument. The Church can perform 
the office of interpreter of the Bible without the gift of infallibility. 
The difficulty of the Bible greatly exaggerated by the advocates of 
infallibility. The Church's interpretation full of difficulties. No 
infallible interpreter in the Old Dispensation ; d, fortiori none in the 
New Testament ; Christians have greater advantages for the under- 
standing of the Word than the Jews. No need of an infallible inter- 
preter ; the Bible was written for men of sound common sense who 
are expected to use their God-given reason. The simplicity of style 
and language manifests the design of God. The very fact that God 
has given us the Bible shows that it is an intelligible book. The 
Bible promotes enlightenment ; the system of Church-infallibility 
covers nations with the veil of darkness. The Bible was sufficiently 
understood, in the first ages, without an infallible interpreter \ why 
not afterwards ? The difficulties of the Bible do not demand an in- 
fallible interpreter. Difi'erent classes of the truths of the Bible and 
their respective difficulties. Whosoever is not satisfied with the 
Bible must likewise be discontented with the doctrine of Church - 
infallibility. Men attached to a system and fond of systematizing 
find it difficult to interpret the Bible. Origin of denominationalism. 
How to gather truth from the Bible. The Bible not a dead letter, 
but the livmg Word oi God. What makes it intelligible to man ? 
Page 90 



Contents. 17 

LECTURE VII. 

REVIEW OP THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE CHURCH'S 
OFFICE AS JUDGE OP CONTROVERSIES. 

Statement of the Roman Catholic argument. The office of judging 
infallibly in doctrinal disputes is neither directly nor indirectly 
mentioned in the Bible ; quite the contrary can be proved. Individ- 
ual conviction of the mind necessary for finally settling controversies 
of faith. The Church, as the kingdom of the truth, settles contro- 
versies by the Bible, the only standard of revealed truth. Roman 
Catholics exaggerate doctrinal difficulties. Three classes of contro- 
versial differences : 1, in regard to disciplinary points, where 
divergencies are allowable, perhaps desirable. 2, In regard to doc- 
trinal points, that may be held either one way or the other, without 
injury to faith and charity. Truth is many-sided. Liberty of con- 
science ; its nature and use in God's economy of revealed truths. 
3, Differences inimical to purity of faith ; no infallible tribunal 
required to settle them. They are trials of faith. The Bible and 
God's Spirit guide the lover of the truth. Champions of the truth 
both in the Jewish and Christian Dispensations. Their providential 
office. Difficulties of the Roman hypothesis. How are controversies 
of faith settled t^e y^re ? How de facto i ^,Pagc 102 

LECTURE VIII. 

INFALLIBILITY NOT NECESSARY FOR THE UNITY OF THE 

CHURCH. 

Roman Catholic argument. Nature of true unity. Centralization not 
unity ; too complicated and inconvenient ; too despotic ; contains 
the germs of dissolution. The government of the Church not 
monarchical. Genesis of Roman Catholic unity. What is true 
organic unity ? What does Scripture teach in regard to the Church's 
unity ? Unity must be eminently catholic. Relation between the 
Church of mankind and the Christian Church. The Bible the source 
and centre of all Christian unity. Roman Catholic objection. What 
kind of unity was there in the . first ages of Christianity ? Present 

2 



18 Contents, 

divisions of Protestants. Liberty in unity ; completely destroyed 
by Romanism ; difficulties in tbe way of restoring it. Have we 
unity in Protestantism ? Symptoms of unity. Protestant deUomi- 
nations ; how may they be unij&ed ? Sting of denominationalism. 
Page 114 



Part II. 



THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF TEE INFALLIBILITY- 
DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

LECTURE I. 

THE DOCTRINE OP CHURCH-INFALLIBILITY HAS NOT SETTLED 
CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 

Introduction to the second part of this course. Good Roman Catholic 
and Protestant Christians have the same faith and spirit all the 
world over ; caution to our bigotry. The Roman hierarchy unable 
to settle controversies of faith. Their starting point is wrong ; they 
doubt the sincerity and insult the character of the accused party 
before he is heard. The judge of controversy, being one of the con- 
tending parties, cannot be impartial. The character of the judges 
not calculated to inspire confidence like that of our judge, the Bible. 
The procedure of the trial wrong ; they exclude discussion ; demand 
blind and unreserved submission ; refuse the benefit of defence . 
Despotism of these infallible lords ; fills the Church of Rome with 
hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. Difference between secular and 
spiritual tribunals. Internal conviction required. The nature of the 
decrees and definitions of this tribunal is such that they cannot settle 
controversy ; obscure language ; giving rise to new controversies ; 
requiring another interpreter. Difficulty of access to the infallible 
tribunal. The living voice a chimera. Written documents of 
councils and popes really their only rule of faith ; these are their 
Bible; its peculiarities; a rival and enemy of the true Bible. The 
means of enforcing their decrees tend to perpetuate controversies. 
^Excommunication ; its nature and effects . , . , Page 129 



Cofttents. 19 

LECTUEE II. 

THE COERCIVE POWER OF THE ROMAN CHURCH MILITATES 
AGAINST HER CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY. 

The Church of Eome has essei^tially a persecutiog spirit. She not 
only claims to hold control over all spiritual matters, but over soul 
and body also. Vain efforts to throw the abuses of the coercive 
power on the secular power. Connection between Church and State. 
The Church herself claims to possess temporal coercive power. 
How does she prove it ? The Church a terror to all her members. 
The system of infallibility leads to exclusiveness, bigotry, and (jruelty. 
The coercive power impedes the settlement of controversies. The 
excommunicated person is handed over to the secular arm ; which is 
compelled to execute the Church's decrees of temporal punishment. 
The Church accountable for the cruelties of the State in punishing 
heretics. The coercive power unable to settle controversies inforo 
intemo. The Church of Eome full of hidden heretics and unbe- 
lievers. The spy-system essential to Rome. The Inquisition an 
offshoot of the coercive power. Its terrible nature. Character of 
the Inquisitorial judges. Victims of the Inquisition. Its procedure 
most unjust, heartless, and cruel. Picture of the Inquisition. It 
still exists. It is a condemnation of the infallibility-system. The 
Church asserts the power of condemning heretics to death. The 
claim to coercive power glaringly contradicts Rome's doctrine on 
the conscience. The Church of Rome a despotic kingdom of this 
world. Suspicion of heresy ; how easily entertained and to what it 
leads. Rome's coercive power in abeyance in mixed communities ; 
would fully exercise it if she had the opportunity. Spiritual des- 
potism cannot be divested of cruelty.....,,*,,,. Page 141 

LECTUHE III. 

INFALLIBILITY NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY IN THE CHURCH 

OF ROME. 

Rome's maxim : Without infallibility no unity. The mere authority 
of the teaching body can preserve unity only among an ignorant 
people. Rome and education, both popular and higher. In what 
light her educational efforts ought to be viewed. Her struggles for 



20 Contents. 

obtaining the sole control of all education. The pope's edicts. 
Separate schools ; their nature. Why this great ado of the hierarchy 
about education ? An enlightened people demands a unity based on 
the truth, not on the principle of hierarchical infallibility. Higher 
education ; how managed ; a certain kind of metaphysics dovetailing 
with their theology. ** Catholics on principle '* not united with the 
Church by the power of ecclesiastical infallibility. The doctrine of 
infallibility does Hot prevent disunion ; but has been the cause of 
disunion within the Church. It makes the Church stationary and 
unyielding. Society progressive. Rome cannot be at the head of 
social movements. Her obscurantism ; ignores the signs of the 
times. Rome and modern civilization. The hierarchy a selfish 
caste; having no sympathy with modern social aspirations. In 
endeavouring to pull back the car of social progress, they constrain 
peoples and nations to separate themselves from the Church. The 
system of infallibility is so cumbersome that disruption cannot be 
prevented in time. Difficulties before the Vatican Council. The 
Vatican decrees rather increase the danger of disunion. The system 
of infallibility produces torpor and inactivity^ and therefore is a 
source of disunion. Reason of a unity within the Church of Rome. 
Actual divisions within that Church ; compared with the divisions 
of Protestant Christendom Page 155 

LECTUEE IV, 

PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE OP THE INFALLIBILITY- DOCTRINE ON 
THE OFFICE OF THE CHURCH AS WITNESS-BEARER. 

This doctrine not only distorts and obscures revealed truths, but super- 
adds the traditions of men. Difficulties of this system. The hier- 
archy cannot prove their Apostolical succession. Petitio principii. 
They are compelled to reduce their oral tradition to written docu- 
ments. Flagrant contradictions of their system. Roman Catholic 
doctrine in regard to new definitions. Assistance not inspiration. 
Bishops must study the entire range of tradition. Their qualifications. 
Their practice contradicts their theory. The aid which theologians 
afford the bishops ; to what does it amount ? Another contra<^ iction. 
Qualification of theologians. Process by which the Church draws 
the treasure of divine revelation from tradition. Very few of her 



Contents. 21 

priests are capable even of attempting the task. They cannot be 
impartial in their studies. Always on the defensive. A superhuman 
task. They meet with difficulties on all sides in rightly understand- 
ing the documents of tradition. Are the fathers competent witnesses 
of the catholicity of a doctrine ? Pag^ 173 

LECTUEE V. 

THE DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE 
OP THE INFALLIBILITY-THEORY. 

Origin of this doctrine. Its nature ; explicit and implicit belief. Dr. 
Newman on development. Refutation of this doctrine. Petitio 
principii. Contradiction of their rule of Catholicity ; additions and 
amplifications. The source of multiplying dogmas ad infinitum. 
How new dogmas are fabricated. Importance of the scholce theolo- 
gorum ; they are the working bees. Two stra::i.^e phenomena. 
Popular belief difi'erent from that of the scholcB. Sudden surprises 
of the laity. The Church of Rome is too slippery for an honest Pro- 
testant controversialist. Changeableness of the Roman Catholic 
belief. What kind of doctrines are principally developed. True 
development. Difference between subjective and objective develop- 
ment. The Abbe Michaud on this theory Page 186 

LECTURE VI. 

SACERDOTALISM : ITS CONNECTION WITH THE INFALLIBILITY- 
SYSTEM. 

Position of sacerdotalism in regard to Christianity. Its nature. 
Mediatorship between God and man. A sacrificing priesthood. 
The mass. Refutation. Ignorance respecting the nature of sacri- 
fice. Sacramentarianism. Roman Catholic sacraments. The mass 
the centre of all the sacraments. Minor religious observances. 
Ritualism the satellite of sacerdotalism. Its character and origin. 
Its pernicious influence on the people. Its vanity and unreality. 
Historical outline of the gradual development of sacerdotalism and 
ritualism. A word in season addressed to ritualists in Protestant 
Churches Page 197 



22 Contents. 

Part III. 

THE PAPACY AND INFALLIBILITY, 
LECTURE I. 

THE PRIMACY OF PETER. 

The papacy the outgrowth of sacerdotalism, and the result of devel- 
opment. The system of clerical aristocracy or high-churchism 
tends to popery. Claims of the papacy. What are its title deeds ? 
St. Peter's supposed primacy. Argument from Matt, xvi., 18. The 
metaphor rocJc differently interpreted by the fathers. Neither the 
other Apostles, nor Peter, nor Christ understood it in the Roman 
sense. If Peter be meant by rocJCy it cannot mean government. 
Peter received here no power proper to him alone, and as superior to 
the other Apostles. Obvious and true interpretation of the metaphor 
rocJc. Argument from the metaphor keys. Its true interpretation. 
Special pleading of Roman Catholics. Argument from John xxi., 
15-17. Its true interpretation. No trace of Peter's primacy of 
jurisdiction in the New Testament ; nowhere distinctly mentioned ; 
no distinct name given to it ; Christ nowhere distinctly explained 
its nature, or laid down rules for its guidance. No sign of Peter's 
supreme authority in his two epistles. In all controversies no 
appeal to Peter's judgment Page 213 

LECTURE II. 

THE pope's supremacy CONSIDERED. 

Gratuitous supposition that the Bishop of Rome is the successor to St. 
Peter's primacy. Whatever prerogatives Peter received were per- 
sonal; and all embraced in his Apostolical office; therefore incom- 
municable to successors. In what sense bishops may be said to be 
the successors of the Apostles. The powers of the Apostles extra- 
ordinary and unlimited. St. Peter's office not that of an ordinary 
bishop, he having pastoral charge over the universal Church as his 
diocese. The laws of succession should be clearly and distinctly laid 
down. Deep silence reigns in Scripture concerning this important 



Contents, 23 

point. Third supposition, Peter was not the ordinary local bishop 
of Rome. Was he ever at Rome ? The office of an Apostle and 
that of an ordinary local bishop incompatible. Peter's Apostolical 
labours preclude the supposition that he ever was local pastor of 
Rome. It would also have been a lowering of the Apostolical dig- 
nity. If Peter had been ordinary bishop of Rome, he would have 
violated several good ecclesiastical rules. How to explain those 
ancient writers who say that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Fourth 
supposition. Would succession to Peter's supposed Roman bishopric 
imply also succession to his primacy? Roman Catholic rule of 
succession arbitrary ; unknown to Roman civil society ; to the 
teaching of the fathers. Scripture is silent about it. Roman Catho" 
lie reasoning contradictory. They assert that it was Peter's will 
that the bishop of Rome should succeed him in the primacy. How 
do they prove this ? It would have been unfair towards the surviv- 
ing Apostles ; unjust towards the whole Church at Rome, because 
depriving her of the right of electing her ordinary supreme pastor. 
The history of the succession of the Roman bishops a standing scan- 
dal in Christendom. The papacy defectible. History and tradition 
silent about the supremacy of the bishop of Rome. Fagt 226 



LECTURE III. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY. — THE ROMAN BISHOPRIC IN 
THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. 

The government of the Church in the first century. Development of 
the episcopacy. Clerical aristocracy. Gradual suppression of the 
rights of the clergy and people by the bishops. Influence of Con- 
stantine's conversion on the government of the Church. Church 
and state. The primatial jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as yet 
unknown. Ambition of the bishops and their lordly pride. Cir- 
cumstances favoured the prelate of Rome. The importance of his 
episcopal city. His influence with the emperors. Nature of the 
growth of spiritual power. The canons of Sardica. The imprudence 
of the emperors and the precipitate action of bishops enlarged his 
power. The state of the Church during the first eight centuries 
assisted his ambition. Prelatical quarrels. Contentions of the 



24 Contents. 

patriarchs. Influence of the monks. The contest for supremacy 
finally reduced to a struggle between two rivals, the bishops of 
Rome and of Constantinople. Circumstances favourable to Rome in 
this rivalry. The Roman clergy and the bishops of the West. 
Splendour of the papal court. Political convulsions, disposition of 
the invading barbarians and their druidism, all favouring the 
aggrandizement of Rome. The schism between East and "West the 
consequence of papal ambition Page 239 

LECTURE IV. 

DEVELOPMENT OP THE PAPACY AFTER THE GREAT SCHISM. 

The West the only field for papal ambition. Opposition to papal 
encroachments. Extraordinary liberality of the barbarian nations. 
Bishops become temporal princes. The temporal power of the pope. 
Pepin and Pope Zachary. Charlemagne. Restoration of the Roman 
empire. Influence of the popes in conferring the imperial dignity. 
The exaggerated views of the invading nations regarding the effects 
of excommunication assisted in the enlargement of papal authority. 
The papacy profits by the disturbed state of the empire. It becomes 
a political institution. It gathers strength in the gross ignorance 
and supeFstition which covered Europe. Growth of its influence in 
civil aff'airs. Its encroachments on the rights of the bishops and 
councils of the Church. Rome justifies its pretensions by forgeries. 
Early forgeries. Ambition of Nicholas I. Opposition to the pseudo 
Isidorian decretals. They changed the constitution of th3 Church. 
The Hildebrandine era. Leo IX. The new school. The universal 
theoretic priest-kingdom. Gregory VII. Co-operators in the Gre- 
gorian system of Church-law. Gregory VII. enforces his claims 
with boldness, and against all opposition. Clerical celibacy. Con- 
tentions about the investiture of bishops. From Gregory VII. to 
Boniface VIII. the papacy at the zenith of its power and glory. 
Character of this period. The papal chair occupied by monks who 
governed like monks. Alexander III. and Frederick Barbarossa. 
Innocent III., and his extraordinary reign. Boniface VIII. ; his 
enormous pretensions ; his quarrel with Philip the Fair. Causes 
which, after Gregory VII., contributed to increase and consolidate 



Contents, 25 

papal absolutism. Revival of the Roman law. Study of canon 
law. Gratian's Decretum, The Crusades. The Universities of 
Paris and Bologna. Mendicant friars. Military orders. Removal 
of the papal residence to Avignon. The long Schism. The Councils 
of Constance and Basle. Why did not the nations throw off the 
yoke of the papacy after having experienced its curse ? The papacy 
incorrigible. The Reformation ; its crippled papal absolutism. 
Henceforth the claim to infallibility comes prominently in the fore- 
ground Page 253 

LECTUEE Y. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 

Spiritual absolutism has no raison d'itre without claiming the gift of 
infallibility. The ills of the Church arose from the intoxication of 
absolute papal power. The upheavings of the Reformation, a protest 
against papal Absolutism, and its claim to infallibility. Rome too 
powerful for the Reformation. Her wars against it. The Inqui- 
sition. Secret emissaries. The monks. The order of the Jesuits 
called into existence to crush the Reformation. Character of the 
Jesuits. The Infallibility-question became their question ; they 
were well adapted for its advocacy ; their system of blind obedience. 
Cardinal Pallavicini reduces the Infallibility-doctrine to a definite 
formula. The Jesuit Theologians. Cardinal Bellarmine's defence 
of the dogma ; aided by the Inquisition and the Index Lihrorum Pro^ 
hihitorum. Manipulation of the Roman breviary, in order to imbue 
the clergy with this doctrine. Historical labours of Cardinal 
Baronius in favour of Infallibility. Rapid spread of the infallibility- 
doctrine, through the labours of the Jesuits. Jesuitical introduction 
of the ex-cathedrd distinction. Opposition to the machinations of 
the Jesuits. The successors and descendants of the councils of Con- 
stance and Basle. Galileans and Ultramontanes. Advantages of 
the latter ; disadvantages of the former. Circumstances which 
hastened the dogmatic definition. The Vatican council. What in- 
duced the minority-bishops to subscribe almost immediately after 
the council. Page 273 



26 Contents. 



LECTURE VL 

THE VATICAN COUNCIL — THE INFALLIBILITY-DECREE IN THE 
LIGHT OF REASON AND TRADITION. 

The Vatican council itself alone a complete refutation of Roman Catho- 
licism both Gallican and Ultramontane. Meaning of the Infallibility- 
dogma. The arguments in its favour are mostly of an inferential 
character, and drawn from the pretended primacy of Peter, and from 
the nature and object of the Church. The same end may be obtained 
by other means. Blind faith contrary to God's order, and the 
nature of the human mind. Christian faith an intelligent assent 
demanding research. The Vatican decree destroys all individual 
responsibility in matters of faith. The rule of Catholicity not appli- 
cable to the new dogma. It has no foundation in Tradition. It is 
not found in the ancient creeds, expositions of faith, or acts of coun- 
cils. The whole economy of the first eight oecumenical councils 
militates against it ; they even judged the letters and acts of the 
popes. The whole Greek Church ignores this doctrine. The 
fathers knew nothing of it. Teaching of the Latin fathers in regard 
to the bishop of Rome. The African Church. The system of Unity 
advocated by St. Cyprian does not favour papal infallibility. The 
teaching of St. Augustine opposed to this dogma. Exposure of the 
famous dictum : Eoma locuta est, causa finita est. The fathers in 
their disputes with heretics never appealed to the judgment of the 
bishop of Rome as final Page 286 

LECTURE VII. 

THE VATICAN DECREE IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, 

History teaches that the Vatican oracle is a lying oracle. Popes con- 
tradict the dogmatic teaching of the Church of Rome on the nature 
and administration of the sacraments. Innocent I. on communion 
of infants; Nicholas I. on baptism. Celestine III. and Stephen II. 
on marriage. Nicholas II. on the eucharist. Eugenius IV. on the 
validity of the sacraments. Errors of the mediaeval popes on the 
sacrament of holy orders. Heresies of the Dopes in resrard to the 



Contents. 27 

relation between their authority and the secular power. Since the 
Hildebrandine era they have proclaimed the whole world a priest- 
kingdom ; asserting ^hat they have supreme authority in all tem- 
poral matters, and that all secular power is derived from them ; 
claiming the two swords, the power of erecting new kingdoms, and 
of appointing kings ; of deposing princes, and absolving subjects 
from the oath of allegiance. They claimed this enormous power not 
by international law, but by Divine right. They intended such 
teaching to be ex cathedra and dogmatic. Gregory VII. Innocent 
III. Innocent IV. Boniface VIII. Review of this pope's bull 
Unam Sanctam. Vain endeavour of modern theologians to explain 
away its dogmatic import. Former eminent divines and the popes 
themselves succeeding Boniface VIII. acknowledge its dogmatic 
authority. Suarez. Baronius. Lessius. Bellarmine. Pope Pius V. 
Sixtus V. Difficult dilemma from the horns of which Roman 
Catholics cannot escape. Painful straits to which they are reduced 
in regard to the many dogmatic errors of mediaeval and modern 
popes. Heresies of the ancient bishops of Rome. The apostasy of 
Liberius. Zosimus. Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters' contro- 
versy. Review of the case of Honorius. No special exegesis can 
purge his letters to Sergiiis from the stain of heresy . They were 
written ex cathedra. Honorius condemned by the Church as a 
heretic. Efforts of the infallibilists to reconcile the case of Honorius 
with the Vatican dogma Page 297 



LECTURE VIII 

the; VATICAN DECREE IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE. 

Scripture the last source of arguments to which Roman Catholics 
appeal. The Old Testament is against them. Dr. Newman's state- 
ment. They contradict their cardinal rule of interpretation, as con- 
tained in the creed of Pius V. Review of the arguments drawn from 
Matt, xvi., 18. ; John xxi., 15. ; Luke xxii., 32. Dr. Schaff's 
remarks on the spiritual Peter and carnal Simon. ...Page 311 



28 Contents, 

LECTURE IX. 

THEORY AND FACT. * 

In the process of reasoning by which Eoman Catholics endeavour to 
establish the infallibility-hyphothesis, the conclusion is assumed to 
be more certain than the premises on which it rests. Contradiction 
between the infallibility-doctrine and its [practical influence on the 
belief of the Church. The recent controversy. Mr. Gladstone and 
Dr. Newman. What induced Dr. Newman to accept the Vatican 
decrees ? What became of the Galileans ? New theological schools, 
the minimizers and maximizers. No uniformity "of belief. Where 
is the certain voice of the living teacher to be found ? The scholce 
no longer represent the papacy in its doctrines. The pope being all 
in all, can no longer speak by any agent. The rule of faith now is : 
Quod hodie in Vaticano a Domino nostro Papa declaratum est. The 
entire Christian religion, in the last resort, reposes in the breast of 
the pope. Reply of the maximizers ; it would be useless to debate 
with them. Our controversy is with the minimizing theologians. 
Dr. Newman's remarks about the virtue of faith — suggesting " the 
drift of all he has to say about the Vatican definition." Reply. 
Why faith is a different virtue in the Roman system. They cannot 
give a logical genesis of the act of faith. Why they shrink from a 
fearless enquiry. History contradicts Dr. Newman's assertion that 
"the Church has ever shown the utmost care to contract the range 
of truths, and the sense of propositions of which she demands abso- 
lute reception." Rome constantly developes new dogmas. Reasons 
which may induce the pope to speak in future more frequently 603 
cathedra, than before the Vatican council. Dr. Newman's plea for 
"a wise and gentle minimism" of no avail. Minimism a faint exer- 
cise of mental liberty, not in favour at Rome. The hopes of Dr. 
Newman in the labours of the scholar theologoru7n unfounded. The 
science of theolog)' incompatible with papal infallibility.... Pa^e 317 



Contents. 29 



LECTUEE X. 

THE VATICAN DECREE CHANGES THE RELATION OF THE PAPACY 
TO THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 

The Vatican decree transfers the gift of infallibility from the Church 
to the pope ; it ceases to be the same power. All the former safe- 
guards in regard to definitions of faith are taken away. The pope 
in a different position in regard to princes and states. La Chiesa 
sono io. The pope's dogmatic definitions and decrees will greatly 
depend on his personal character. Pius IX. The pope's immediate 
surroundings influence his dogmatic utterances ; the malaria in the 
atmosphere of the Vatican. The Church will be completely Italian- 
ized, Twofold loyalty of Roman Catholics. Loyalty to the pope 
must prevail. The Vatican definition has changed the civil status 
of Roman Catholics. Dr. Newman's minimizing on this point con- 
tradicts the Roman system. The pope's interference in the admin- 
istration of civil governments. Conflict between papal decrees and 
civil laws. Contest between the papacy and the German empire. 
The struggle in Italy. Nature of the rights for which the pope con- 
tends in all countries. His voice must have an influence on the 
loyalty of " the faithful." Change produced by the Vatican decrees 
in the standing of the episcopate. Reasons why the people con- 
tinue to remain in spiritual slavery , ...Page 330 

LECTUEE XL 

REVIEW OP THE RESTRICTIONS OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 

Dr. Newman, in comparing the ex-cathedra teaching with an oecume- 
nical council contradicts his former assertion that ** the pope has 
that same infallibility which the Church has. " If the pope's infalli- 
bility be admitted at all, it must be unconditional and unlimited ; 
in the last analysis, it becomes a purely personal attribute. The 
expression doctor privatus, when used of a pope, is like talking of 
wooden iron. When does the pope speak ex cathedra ? Review of 
the four conditions adduced by Dr. Newman. The first condition is 
too limiting ; it contradicts the papal system. Is the pope the uni- 



30 Contents, 

versal teacher only when he addresses the whole Chnrr> ? The 
second condition comprises more than they are willing to admit. 
The third condition is useless, as the pope himself has to draw the 
line between religious and secular matters. The fourth condition 
throws no new light on the subject. No choice left between infal- 
libility pure and simple and repudiating it altogether Fage, 342 



PART I. 



THE THEORY OF INFALLIBILITT IN REGARD 
TO THE GHURCH OF GHRIST. 



LECTUEE L 

INTRODUCTION. 

THERE is an institution in the religious world whicli great- 
ly puzzles and perplexes the enlightened Protestant. 
This institution boasts a respectable antiquity, and, in some re- 
spects, a grand history which has often dazzled the scholar 
in many a brilliant episode. It possesses a vital power that, 
going beyond the comprehension of a merely superficial ob- 
server, displays its masterly ability by knowing how to make 
proselytes, and how to keep them within its bosom. Since 
its formal inauguration as a system, it has always been the 
most pretentious, as well as the most exclusive, ecclesiastical 
institution, embracing within its fold the greater part of 
Christendom, even amongst nations bitterly hostile to each 
other. Some of the best men and the noblest benefactors of 
mankind have been its humble adherents, and its members 
cling to it even to the verge of fanaticism. It is like a well disci- 
plined and ably officered army presenting the appearance of an 
invincible phalanx. For every disposition of mind it makes 
room, and provides satisfaction for every taste. Its highly 
symbolic ritual has charms for the cultured as well as for the 
ignorant. The greatest masters of -the liberal arts have been 
its willing servants. They have erected temples un- 
surpassed in architectural beauty and grandeur ; they have 
adorned them with impressive sculpture and painting, and 
enlivened them with sublime song and music. In a word, 



36 Roman Catholicism. 

this institution seems to have the wonderful gift of making 
its members contented and steadfast. 

And yet the enlightened Protestant knows that this very- 
institution is brimful of error and superstition ; that it per- 
verts the most important truths of Christianity; that in 
many cases it makes the Word of God of none effect by its 
traditions, and for the Word of God substitutes the word of 
man ; that its ritual symbolizes the greatest errors, so that 
its central worship is, if not formal, at least material idola- 
try ; and that its government is a spiritual despotism en- 
slaving its members. 

You are aware that I mean the Church of Eome. The re- 
flecting Protestant is astonished at the phenomena which 
this Church presents to him. To his impartial judgment the 
many good points that she possesses are evident ; but the 
many evils also with which she is weighted stare him in the 
face in all their glaring deformity. He cannot understand 
why enlightened members of Rome should not perceive these 
defects, should not see what he sees and insist upon a thorough 
reformation of their Church, rejecting the error and retain- 
in the truth. He cannot understand how enlightened 
Koman Catholics can possibly believe that in the mass, by 
the consecrating words of the priest, bread and wine are 
changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and offered again 
by an earthly priest as a sacrifice for the living and dead ; how 
sensible and serious men can be attracted and deluded by so 
sensuous a worship, symbolizing, as it does, the grossest error. 
He cannot comprehend how free, enlightened men can believe 
in the extraordinary powers of the priesthood, and submit 
themselves humbly to a hierarchy claiming absolute spiri- 
tual sway. These and many other things in the Church of 
Rome the intelligent Protestant cannot understand. 



Introduction, 37 

But what puzzles Mm still more is that talented men, men 
of standing in other denominations and in society, should 
leave their own Church and enter the Roman Communion. 

I have not time here fully to explain this puzzling pheno- 
menon. Each pervert to Rome has his own story to tell. 
Most of these men are dissatisfied with their Church and 
with Protestantism generally, and hope to find in Rome 
that which Rome lays claim to, namely, the old Catholicism 
which is based on the foundation of the Apostles. There 
is also a certain amount of rationalism in Roman theo- 
logy. What else is the scholastic theology but rationalism 
with a pious tendency'? Now, the learned men who have 
gone over to Rome are for the most part imbued with that 
philosophic and mystic rationalism by the aid of which Rome 
defends her errors. Such men are prone to recognize in 
the greatest Roman errors deep philosophical and theolo- 
gical truths. There can be no doubt also, that Rome has an 
imposing exterior ; truth and error are mixed together ; and 
this compound is embellished with all the refinement and 
beauty of poetry and the arts, and presented under a gorgeous 
ritual based upon a fallacious symbolism. No wonder, then, 
that men of a certain cast of mind are dazzled by the false 
light and caught in the net. 

The literature of the Roman controversy is very extensive, 
for it would fill whole libraries ; but I think the good it has 
done, is by no means commensurate with its extent. More 
favourable results might have been expected, and in a 
number of cases it has done positive harm! As a rule, books 
of controversy written and published by Protestants do not 
reach Roman Catholics, since they are forbidden to possess 
or read them. Some have been written for political and party 
purposes, and consequently are calculated rather to excite 



38- . Roman Catholicism. 

anger than to gain attentive consideration. Some have 
misinterpreted doctrines, and are regarded as calumnies 
and misrepresentations. Others again have been written in 
a bigoted spirit, and are met by them with a countervailing 
bigotry. Some are too learned for the popular mind^ and 
others too shallow to deserve the attention of an intelligent 
Roman Catholic reader. So far as my own experience goes, 
I think that Roman Catholics are under the settled impres- 
sion that, in our controversies with them, we do not treat 
them in a kind and Christian spirit, but rather approach them 
as enemies and in the spirit of bitterness. Hence even the 
well-meaning and truth-loving members of that Church are 
on their guard against us and our publications ; they look 
upon us with suspicion when we meet them in the arena of 
theological disputation, and well they may. Do not our best 
Protestant controversialists — men whom we regard as pat- 
terns in every Christian walk — seem to become inflated with 
bigotry and seized with an insane frenzy, so soon as they 
enter upon the field of controversy with Roman Catholics ? 
Is it not the settled custom to apply to the pope and the 
Roman Church the most opprobrious epithets? Do they 
*' speah the truth in love .?" 

In treating with Roman Catholics, we must act justly, 
fairly and kindly. We should never lose sight of the fact 
that Rome has never denied Christ and that her fundamental 
doctrine of salvation is Christ and faith in Him ; that she 
possesses the Bible and reveres it as the Word of God. 
Moreover we cannot deny that Rome as a Church is zealous 
in good works. In our controversy with Rome, therefore, 
we should approach her with the deference due to a Christian 
Church. True, we believe that she teaches many erroneous 
doctrines 3 but that should not, by any means, hinder us 



Introduction, 39 

from acting towards her with courteous consideration. Have 
not other Churches, too, gone astray ? Yet we look upon 
them as Christian bodies and treat them with brotherly kind- 
ness. Why should we make an exception as regards the 
Church of Rome % Let us then " speak the truth in love." 
By this method we may the more easily convince our erring 
brethren and extend the kingdom of Christ and His truth. 
" SiJeaking the truth in love^^ shall be my motto in this course 
of lectures, especially as I know, from my own experience, 
that our Roman Catholic brethren are sensitive' as to the 
manner, not less than the matter, of the controversy. 

In all countries Roman assumptions appear to have 
received a new importance in our days. All Europe is 
ablaze with it. In Italy, a fierce struggle has been going on 
now for some years between the papacy and the new order of 
things. In Germany the very existence of the new empire 
seems to be staked on its final victory over ultramontanism. 
France, Spain and Austria have their religious excitements 
and controversies with Rome, and England has not escaped. 
The innovations of ritualism have kindled again the fire of 
her old religious struggles ; and on the American continent, 
the atmosphere is lurid from a kindred cause. The Roman 
difficulty appears never to be settled ; every now and then 
something new arises to stir it up afresh. So long as Rome 
has life and strength, the battles of the Reformation will have 
to be fought over and over again. If experience has taught us 
wisdom, we shall contest them in a difierent spirit. 

Before entering upon a controvercy we must take a sure 
standpoint, survey the field, and determine with precision 
the matter in dispute ; otherwise there will inevitably be 
confusion and misunderstanding. If, then, we wish to refute 
what is commonly called Romanism, we must fii^st clearly and 



40 Roman Catholicism, 

distinctly state in what E/Omanism consists, for mistakes havd 
been made by controversialists in answering this question. 

Romanism does not consist in those truths which it pro- 
fesses in common with other Christians, and which are the 
spiritual food of its members. The Romanist often points to 
these truths as his religion, when his Church is assailed; but 
that is not what we attack and call Romanism. 

Nor does it consist in those errors which it holds in com- 
mon with other Churches, such as the real and objective 
presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, the 
sacrifice of the mass, the seven sacraments, and sacramental 
grace ex opere operato, auricular confession and priestly absolu- 
tion, a high symbolical liturgy in an unknown tongue, celibacy 
of the clergy, prayers to the Virgin Mary and the Saints, pil- 
grimages and prayers for the dead. All these errors, besides 
others, are as tenaciously and steadfastly held by the Eastern 
Churches, comprising many millions of adherents j and some 
of these false doctrines and superstitious practices are pro- 
fessed, in a modified form, by Protestant Churches. They 
are, therefore, not distinctively Roman. You may as well call 
the mass, confession, priestly absolution, and other doctrines, 
Russian, or Greek, or Armenian, or Syrian, &c., as Roman. 
Most of these errors existed in the Church before Romanism 
had being; and they had crept in, not purposively, but 
through an excess of piety and reverence for holy things and 
ordinances, or through the characteristic tendency of Eastern 
nations towards the symbolic or outward elements of religion. 

When, therefore, we accuse our Ritualists, Sacramentarians, 
or others, of Romanism or Romeward tendencies, we utter a 
false accusation ; for these errors are neither exclusively and 
distinctively Romish, nor do they of themselves lead to Rome. 
They must be dealt with by themselves, and on their own 



Introduction. 41 

merits, and not on the ground that they have any essential 
and distinctive connection with Komanism. This connection 
is altogether accidental. True, some of these Eitualists and 
men of similar tastes and tendencies, have gone over to Rome; 
but if ritualism alone induced them to take that step, their 
eyes must have been opened in astonishment when they 
found themselves actually within the portals of Rome, and 
discovered in what Eomanism really consists. There they 
had to unlearn not only much of their former ritualism, but 
were compelled to learn what, before joining themselves 
to Kome, they so stoutly repudiated, namely, yielding obedi- 
ence to constituted rule and authority, and that not intelli- 
gently, but blindly. No ; ritualism is not essentially Rom- 
anism. True, Rome has a ritual which is the work of ages; 
but that does not constitute her essential and distinctive 
character. Other Churches have similar or even more gorgeous 
ones, in comparison with which the Roman ritual appears 
very sober and jejune. 

What, then, is Romanism, since these errors do not of 
themselves constitute its special character ? I answer : that 
is Romanism which no other Church but Rome holds, which 
pervades her whole constitution and nature, and by which 
she can be known and distinguished all over the world as 
the Church of Rome. And what is this? The doctrine, 
that the Church of Christ is infallible; thojt the Church of 
Rome is the Church of Christ; and therefore that she alone is 
infallible. This, stated in syllogistic form, is Romanism. 

Simple as the dogma appears, it expresses Rome's distin- 
guishing characteristic. It pervades and permeates her whole 
nature, and is the mainspring of her entire action. It imparts 
a peculiar tinge to all her errors, even those which she holds 
in common with other Churches; because she stereotypes 



42 Roman Catholicism, 

tliem and seals them with permanency. It is the source of 
new errors which are developed from time to time. It ren- 
ders all doctrinal reform within her borders simply impossible; 
for, by reforming, she would deny her infallibility, and stul- 
tify herself. It gives the hierarchy that absolute sway over 
the consciences of her members which destroys all individu- 
ality, and nips in the biid all independence of inquiry. It 
causes her to consider herself the only Church of Christ, out 
of whose pale there is no salvation, and to regard all who 
differ from her as heretics and schismatics, against whom 
she fulminates her excommunications and anathemas. This 
doctrine of infallibility imbues her with the spirit of intoler- 
ance, persecution, and cruelty, and destroys in her heart that 
tender love which the good shepherd should feel towards 
errant sheep. It subordinates the Book of God to her 
voice; nay, she maintains that we should not have the 
Bible but for her and through her, nor understand it rightly 
but by means of her interpretation; for she claims an exist- 
ence anterior to the Bible, and independent of it, and that 
she could exist even without it. In a word, this doctrine of 
infallibility gives life to her whole being, and colour to all 
her decrees, doctrines, and practices, so that even those truths 
or errors, doctrines and practices, which she holds in common 
with other Churches assume a difterent aspect when they are 
presented to her members as dogmas of faith. The infalli- 
bility of the Church is the final evidence of all, the supreme 
judge of controversies, the last sure resting-place for every 
doubting mind ; hence so long as a member maintains this 
doctrine, he must perforce submit understanding and will to 
the decisions of the Church, stifling his doubts, however 
strong they may be. The Church must be right because it 
is infallible, and he wrong because fallible and erring. H© 



tntrodtiction, 43 

cannot conscientiously leave his Church until he is fully 
satisfied that her claim to infallibility is without foundation. 
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the falsehood of 
some of her doctrines, and is unwilling to submit his under- 
standing to her, and at the same time is desirous to remain 
within her bosom, in order to agitate from within for reform, 
is truly to be pitied. Such an agitation would be visited 
mth severe penalties, even with excommunication ; for reform 
involves the denial of her claim to infallibility. Rome is 
always the same : she retains what she once has got in pos- 
session, but she may unravel and develop more, for infallibility 
does not exclude the idea of development. 

Has she B«ot fully developed and in our days solemnly pro- 
nounced, among other things, the infallibility of the pope % 
This dogma was decreed by the Bishops in the Vatican 
Council, and must, therefore, be believed by all Roman 
Catholics. It might be thought that this would convulse the 
entire Church and change her polity. By no means : the dogma 
of the infallibility of the pope is a legitimate outcome from the 
dogma of Church-infallibility; it has been ^rac^ica% acted 
upon by the Roman curia for a number of centuries, and 
the Church has acquiesced, as a matter of course, in this 
action of the papal see. Papal infallibility and Church in- 
fallibility are intimately interwoven; on admitting the latter, 
the former must be conceded. 

Before the Vatican definition, all Roman Catholics were 
agreed that the head of the Church and the body together 
are infallible ; but the question was discussed for a long 
period whether this infallibility resides primarily and prin- 
cipally in the head or in the body. This question distinguished 
their divines into two schools, bitterly opposed to each other 
^the one maintaining that the gift of infallibility resides 



44 Roman Catholicism^ 

pi'imarily in tlie pope, wlio communicates it to the Church ; 
the other teaching that it is esentially possessed by the Church, 
and that the pope, as head of the Church, participates in it 
by agreeing with her. At length, this warmly debated ques- 
tion came to a crisis, and we have seen that in the Vatican 
council (1870) the papal party gained the day. If the 
Church is infallible, it is but reasonable that this prerogative 
should be vested in its head. Theoretically, this dogma does 
not change the complexion of Komanism ; for the pope, in 
issuing infallible decrees, does not claim to stand isolated 
and in his individual capacity. He is supposed to speak as 
the head, united with the body, to think and feel with the 
body, and after having ascertained its consensus, to speak 
finally as the mouthpiece of the body ex cathedra — in his 
official capacity. Pope and Church are still believed to par- 
ticipate mutually and unitedly in the gift of infallibility, as 
before the Vatican decree. 

Such is the way in which Roman Catholics look upon papal 
infallibility. With them the Vatican decree effected noth- 
ing more than a removal of a cause of bitter division between 
two leading schools of theology, and a healing of old sores 
that embittered them each against the other. We shall see, 
in this course of lectures, whether they are right in their views 
on papal infallibility. 

From what I have said it is evident that the very essence 
of Romanism consists in the belief in Church infallibility, 
and that by refuting this doctrine we demolish the very bul- 
wark of the Church of Rome. To consider this subject in its 
principal bearings is the object of the following lectures. In 
order to render' them as useful as possible, I shall endeavour, 
whilst I refute errors, to establish in their place, the true and 
solid foundation oj owr Jaith, 



LECTURE II. 

THE LIVING VOICE OF THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 

THE all-pervading element of Roman Catholicism is the 
doctrine of Church-infallibility. It is this dogma which, 
in the eye of the Roman Catholic, invests his Church with 
Divine authority, and endears her to his heart. Whilst 
with a vast number of Protestants the word Church has no 
fixed and precise meaning, and with others the idea of a 
Church has almost disappeared so that no traces of organic 
Church-life are perceptible; to the member of the Church of 
Rome it possesses a real and all-important significance ; to 
his mind it presents a very clear and well-defined idea, and 
to his spiritual life it is a living organism. He is a Church- 
man, in the strictest sense of the word. 

Nor must we think that he has no weighty arguments for 
these determined views and for the strong attachment he 
bears to his Church. Indeed, so powerful and convincing 
does he consider the proofs in favour of Church infallibility 
that, whilst at times doubting the truth of other tenets of 
his Church, he finds no reason to doubt her infallibility; 
hence the great difficulty in convincing him of his errors. A 
Protestant would find it a difficult task to understand the 
mind of a learned and well-meaning Roman Catholic, to feel 
v/ith him, and lead him out of his narrow system into some- 
thing nobler and better. To clear the way for this task, let 
us first make some elementary remarks and definitions. 



46 Roman Catholicism. 

First, let us come to a clear understanding of the word 
Church. We believe that it is a society "built on the foun- 
dation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Himself being the 
chief corner-stone," having a continuous existence from apos- 
tolic times to our own, and possessing an organic vitality, by 
virtue of which its members profess the same faith, partake 
of the same sacraments, are united by communion of charity, 
animated by the same hope, and governed in the manner in- 
dicated by Christ and His Apostles. 

Now, although Koman Catholics may not object to the 
substance of this definition, still they vastly differ from us 
when they explain it in detail. Thus the form of government 
pointed out in the New Testament is according to their 
theory a visible spiritual monarchy, with the pope at its 
head; union in charity means union with, and subjection to 
the bishop of Rome ; instead of two, they admit seven sacra- 
ments and give them a value and efficacy we cannot concede; 
their views of apostolic succession differ considerably from 
our doctrine of a continuous and uninterrupted existence 
from the apostles to our days. 

These differences may be in some degree understood when 
we reflect that Koman Catholics give a preponderating in- 
fluence to the outward or visible element of the Church. 
We, like them, admit two elements in the constitution of 
the Church, namely, the invisible or inward, and the visible 
or outward part. None will deny that every living society 
has these two constituents. The invisible element of the 
Church is the Word of God — not the letter but the spirit — 
the grace of God, the Holy Ghost pervading the whole body 
of the Church, breathing where He listeth, enlightening the 
mind, changing the heart, strengthening and comforting the 
whole man. The visible or outward element comprises all 



The Living Voice of the Church and Bible, 47 

that can be perceived by our senses, siicli as the members 
of the Church, preaching, rites, ceremonies, &c. 

There exists, no doubt, a mutual and reciprocal influence 
between these two elements which tends to propagate and 
perpetuate the Church. Whilst we exclude neither of them, 
we must be careful to give to each its proper place. It is. 
evident that the inner element ought to have the prepondei*- 
ance over the external one, the Spirit over the senses, the 
Word of God over the word of man. 

It appears not to be thus in the Roman Catholic system, 
where the external and visible element manifestly prevails. 
The adherent of Home considers Christianity chiefly as 
something outward. This is manifest in all his religious 
practices. The worship through the senses prevails over 
the intellectual and spiritual worship. His religion is 
sacramental; outward signs and rites are with him the effec- 
tual means and instruments to which God's grace is promised 
and without which it is impossible to obtain it. Evidently, 
this natural tendency of man for the outward and tangible 
has, perhaps unconsciously, been the reason why the living 
voice of the Church has been invested with infallibility. 

We agree with the Roman Catholic that the Church is in- 
fallible, but we differ from him as to the seat of that infalli- 
bility. We maintain that it resides in the inner element of 
the Church, namely, in the Word of God contained in the 
Bible and deposited within the Church. We believe that 
the Bible is the infallible elfement of the Church, and that on 
this account only, and on no other, she is said to be in- 
fallible, 'Hhe pillar and ground of the truth.^^ We contend 
that a member of the Church can, as far as is necessary for 
his salvation, obtain the truth, with sufficient certainty, by 
applying to the Bible the infallible element of the Church. 



48 Roman Catholicism, 

The Roman Catholic, on the contrary, affirms that the 
gift of infallibility resides primarily in the outward element, 
namely, the living voice of the Church, so that if any one 
wishes to know the truth, he must apply to the Church. But 
he maintains that the truth she proclaims is not new, but 
contained in a two-fold depository — ^the Bible and tradition, 
which are entrusted to her keeping and guardianship. He 
believes that both the Bible and tradition are a dead and 
unintelligible letter if we separate them from the living 
voice of the Church. He maintains that it is only through 
the Church that we possess them andare enabled to understand 
them ; nay, some of their divines go so far as to assert that 
the Church could live and flourish without the Bible. 

In this connection, we must bear in mind that by the 
term Church they do not understand the whole body of its 
members, but only the teaching portion ; and of these we 
must again exclude the priesthood and inferior clergy as not 
participating in the gift of infallibility. Only the bishops, 
with the pope at their head, as strictly successors of the Apos- 
tles, are held to be endued with the power of issuing infallible 
decrees and definitions binding upon all the members, and 
they, therefore, constitute the infallible Church. Here 
again, we remark that they are believed to enjoy this pre- 
rogative, not individually, but collectively. It must be ascer- 
tained whether the whole episcopate speaks, or only a portion 
of it ; and this infallible teaching body of the Church may 
utter infallible dogmas, either assembled in a general 
council, or dispersed throughout the world. 

Again, in order to avoid all misconception in the discus- 
sion of this controversy, we must see what limits they set to 
this infallibility. They say, it is not an inspiration ; they 
allow that the Bible alone is inspired ; they look upon it as 



The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 49 

an assistcmce of the Holy Spirit promised and given by Christ 
to lead the Apostles and their successors into all truth. They 
allow that this assistance does not exclude, but rather pre- 
supposes, all the appliances of human enquiry and study. 
Before the episcopate establishes a doctrine as a dogma of 
faith, it is required to look deeply into the deposit of faith, 
consult Scripture and tradition, and if, after long and mature 
enquiry into these sources, it finds that the dogma has been 
held semper, uhique et ah omnibus — always, everywhere and 
by all — it is justified in declaring that it is a Catholic 
doctrine, and must be held and believed by all members 
of the Church, under pain of excommunication. This enquiry 
they believe so to be assisted by the Holy Ghost, that the 
result of it is infallible truth. 

K/Oman Catholic theologians usually divide their treatise 
on Church-infallibility into two parts. The first part is 
general ; in its course, they endeavour to prove a priori, i, e, 
without considering their own Church, that the Church of 
Christ is endowed with the gift of infallibility. The second 
division is particular, and applies the principle established in 
the first part to their own Church, thus proving that, of 
all Churches calling themselves Christians, the Church of 
Rome alone can lay claim to infallibility, and is therefore 
the only Church of Christ deserving the confidence of man. 
We shall follow this division, and prove, first, that the 
Church of Christ is not infallible, in the Roman Catholic 
sense ; and secondly, that the Church of Rome, instead of 
being infallible, has greatly deviated from the path of truth, 
and that because of this very doctrine of Church-infallibility. 

At the very outset of our discussion, we ask our Roman 
Catholic brethren whether the doctrine of Church-infallibility 
meeto the object for which they so ardently contend, namely, 

4 



50 Roman Catholicism. 

the attainment of an infallible faith based altogether on 
divine authority. Surely, they will agree with us that it is 
not self-evident ; they will certainly not pretend that the 
mark of infallibility is so clearly stamped on the episcopate 
as to elicit at once the faith of man, however ready he may 
be to grasp at any evidence that promises to lead him to the 
attainment of truth. This doctrine, then, requires to be 
demonstrated by such proofs and arguments as will convince 
the mind beyond the possibility of doubt. But these argu- 
ments are only the work of the human mind, which is liable 
to error and mistake, and, whilst they may convince some, 
will be rejected by others. Roman Catholics profess to be- 
lieve in the revealed truths of God, on the infallible authority 
of the Church ; and they believe in the latter because they 
are convinced of it by the arguments of fallible human 
reason. Who does not see that such a method of procedure 
cannot imbue the mind with infallible divine faith ? Whilst 
they profess a belief in the infallible Church, they really 
believe in the correctness of the arguments by which they 
establish that infallibility, and nothing more. 

It appears to me that the rule of faith should suppose 
nothing prior on which it depends for its certainty ; and if 
that something prior is human reason, what else can I call 
it but rationalism ? And however strongly Eoman Catholics 
may repudiate this imputation, however vehemently they 
may clamour that their Church is the bulwark of faith 
against rationalism ; still if we consider the basis of their 
rule of faith and the vast amount of philosophy that enters 
into the defence of their distinctive dogmas, we cannot conceal 
from ourselves the fact that the whole Roman system is 
tainted with rationalism. 

But they retort against us that we, too, must suppose a 



The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 61 

certain amount of reasoning before we can admit the Bible 
as the infallible element of the Church. We answer that 
our position is entirely different from theirs. We base the 
authority of the Bible on no human ai-guments, as they estab- 
lish the doctrine of infallibility \ but we take it on its own 
merits. Without any argumentation, we find that the Bible 
is the great book, the only book of an historical and 'provi- 
dential importance, admirable in its origin and relation to 
all mankind. It excites, therefore, our attention, and 
stimulates in us an almost irresistible interest. We find, 
without any logical process, that it is and always has been 
the book of the Church, and that whatever truth and life 
there is in the Church has been drawn from its pages. We 
open it, read it attentively and with a prayerful dispo- 
sition, and we find that all the praises we have heard of this 
wonderful book are fully justified. As we read on, the 
truth contained in it strikes our mind, touches our con- 
science, impresses deeply our whole being. I cannot enter 
here into details, but this much I unhesitatingly say, that 
the book has in itself the internal evidence of truth, and 
bears witness of its divine origin. There may be obscure 
passages, and surely there are, but who can all at once under- 
stand the wonderful works of God % The more we read it 
with a fitting disposition of mind and heart, the more we 
understand of it ; and that which we understand we cannot 
help but acknowledge to be divine truth ; by virtue of 
this we are compelled to believe that those parts which we 
do not as yet understand are also Divine. We need no 
external proofs, however profound and learned, to establish 
the authority of this book. We simply say, Come and 
see ; here is a book that bears unmistakable evidence on its 
face of being the truth of God ; and if you read it guided by 



52 Roman Catholicism. 

the Spirit of God, you will see as we see, and be fully satis- 
fied. Thus our faith is not rationalism in disguise, but is 
based on 2ifact — a fact of which God Himself is the author — 
a divine fact; hence we confidently lay claim to a faith bright 
with evidence. 

It is, therefore, obvious that the manner in which we estab- 
lish our rule of faith is altogether different from that in 
which Koman Catholics establish theirs. With us, he who 
wishes to overthrow the Church of Christ, must first over- 
throw the Bible; but with the Eoman Catholic, the de- 
molition of the arguments by which infallibility is estab- 
lished is sufficient to overturn and destroy the whole edifice 
of the Church. 

The Roman Catholic will reply that he fails to see how 
the arguments by which he establishes the infallibility of the 
Church can taint his system with rationalism. He may allow 
that such would be the case if they were drawn from pure 
reason and independent of facts; but he claims that the 
arguments in favour of infallibility derive their force from 
the very nature of the Christian verities. To us this does 
not appear to alter the case ; for a rule of faith must be a 
self-evident fact, and in no way dependent on human rea- 
soning for its credibility. However we shall see what value 
his arguments possess. 

The first argument by which Roman Catholics seek to de- 
moKsh our position on the Bible as the only infallible rule 
of faith, and imagine they establish the infallibility of 
the Church, is the existence of the Church prior to the 
Bible. They maintain that the Church was fully established 
and existed for a considerable time before the Bible was com- 
pleted. If then there was from the first an infallible element 
in the Church, the Bible could not be that element, since 



The Living Voice of the Church and Bible. 53 

no other infallible rule then existed than the living voice of 
the Church ; and if the Church was infallible in pre-biblical 
times, why not afterwards ? 

We answer that this prior existence of the Church before 
the Bible is only apparent. In reality, the Bible existed be- 
fore the Church. All will agree that the Scriptures of the 
Old Testament existed before the Church ; nay, Christ and 
His Apostles built their divine mission on them by con- 
stant appeals to them. Moreover none will deny that the 
Gospel is contained in the Old Testament, and that the con- 
stitution of the Church is clearly foreshadowed therein. The 
Christian Church, therefore, depended greatly as to her mle 
of faith on the Old Testament Scriptures, especially as the 
first Christians were mostly converts from Judaism who 
needed constant reference to their sacred writings as a rule of 
faith. Further, as the Church of Christ was to be " built 
on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ Himself being 
the chief corner-stone," she cannot be said to have fully ex- 
isted before their death. The building of the Church on 
this foundation and the writing of the New Testament 
Scriptures commenced and proceeded concurrently until both 
were completed by the same workmen, so that at their death 
the Church stood forth with a complete constitution, and a 
rule of faith given by God's Spirit to lead men into all truth, 
" even to the end of the world." We are justified, therefore, 
in concluding that the Bible existed prior to the Church. 

But should this process of reasoning not fully satisfy our 
Roman Catholic brethren, let them reflect that the state of 
the Church during the lifetime of the Apostles difiered 
materially from her condition in post- Apostolical times ; for 
the Apostles were individually inspired, or they would not 
have been qualified for their office as founders of the Church* 



54 Roman Catholicism, 

They were inspired, or tlie promises of Christ to them would 
have failed of accomplishment ; they were inspired, or they 
could not have given so many miraculous proofs of the 
special presence of the Holy Ghost; nor would they, in their 
writings, have either directly or indirectly so repeatedly laid 
claim to inspiration. We shall not enter here into the 
nature of this inspiration ; we simply maintain that the in- 
spired founders of the Church, by virtue of their office, were 
a rule of faith; but when they departed this life, their 
writings were looked upon as the apostolical foundation on 
which the Church was built. And what better substitute 
could we have for the living voice of the Apostles than their 
inspired writings % 

But here Roman Catholics step forward, and endeavour to 
prove that the infallibility of the Apostles did not die with 
them, but is shared by their successors, not indeed indi- 
vidually and personally, but in their official and collective 
capacity. Let us consider this argument which contains 
many interesting points in our next lecture. 



LECTUEE III. 

CONSIDERATION OF TEE SCRIPTURE ARGUMENTS IN 
FAVOUR OF INFALLIBILITY, 

ROMAN Catholics maintain that the gift of infallibility 
which the Apostles possessed did not become extinct in 
the Church after their death, but was continued in their suc- 
cessors, the bishops, inasmuch as they constitute the teaching 
body. 

We might ask here, if the bishops, by virtue of their Apos- 
tolic succession, are infallible, why do they possess this pre- 
rogative, not individually, but only as a body ? What justifies 
them in making this distinction ? Are not the priests also, 
according to their theory, successors of the Apostles ? Why 
then are they not infallible ? Do not both laity and clergy 
together constitute the Church 1 Why confine the infallible 
authority of the Church to a mere fraction? Why this 
arbitrary system of minimizing which is so characteristic of 
the Church of Rome, not only here but also in other mat- 
ters? We have no time now to enter upon these questions; 
let E/Oman Catholics answer them if they can. We content 
ourselves with demolishing the foundation of this minimizing 
system of infallibility. 

We believe that the Apostles, as such, had no successors. 
As Apostles they were the founders and organizers of the 
Church, and who does not see that, as a matter of course, 
such an office expired at their death ? True, they appointed 



66 Roman Catholicism. 

bishops, priests, and deacons, but these were wedded, as it 
were, only to local Churches, and their office and authority- 
were far different from those of the Apostles ; nor do we 
anywhere read that they ever laid claim to Apostolical pre- 
rogatives. If, then, the Apostles, as such, had no successors, 
and if they enjoyed the gift of infallibility only as Apostles, 
what foundation has the episcopate for claiming infallibility 
as full successors of the Apostles ] 

Let them not say that the gift of infallibility resides in the 
whole Church, but that the bishops alone practically exercise 
it, because, by virtue of their office, they are the representOn 
lives of the Church. Where in the Bible do they find this 
theory ? It is in the nature of representation that represen- 
tatives should be chosen by the parties whom they represent. 
Who appoints the bishops 1 Their dioceses 1 No; the people 
have no part whatever in the election. They are altogether 
the creatures of the pope, who, in appointing them, has no 
regard whatever to the voice of the people ; they are bishops 
by favour of the Apostolic See, How then can they be said 
to be representatives of the people, and as such enjoy the 
gift of infallibility ? 

But granting, for argument's sake, that the bishops are the 
successors of the Apostles; we cannot see by what reasoning 
Koman Catholics can establish the infallibility of the episco- 
pate. They claim to prove it from the Scriptures; but they 
teach also that we cannot know the existence of Scripture as 
such, nor believe in its divine inspiration until we are 
taught and assured of it by the Church. They prove the 
infallibility of the Church by the Bible, and the canon and 
inspiration of the Bible by the infallible teaching of the 
Church. Is not this proving the same by the same, or what 
logicians call a circulus vitiosus? 



Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 57 

They answer, No; for when we prove the infallibility of 
the Church by the Bible we consider the latter merely as a 
book of the highest human authority, a book of the greatest 
credibility; and after having proved by its testimony the 
infallibility of the Church, we prove by the teaching of the 
Church that this book is more than human — that it is the 
inspired Word of God. Thus we do not prove the same by 
the same, for we consider the Bible under two aspects, first 
as merely human, and then as a diviue book. 

Behold, what a formidable apparatus of human ratiocina- 
tion this doctrine of infallibility requires ! First, by all the 
rules of criticism, and by a long series of human argumenta- 
tion they must prove that every single book in the canon of 
the Scriptures is genuine, authentic, and true; and after hav- 
ing done so, they have advanced only one step ; they have 
proved only that the Bible is a book of human authority. 
The next step is to prove, by a similar apparatus of learning, 
that this book teaches the infallibility of the Church. After 
having gone through all this course of reasoning, have they 
absolute certainty as to the truth of all their premises, the 
correctness and concatenation of their inferences % And who 
does not see that only men of talent and learning are 
able to undertake this formidable labour, and successfully to 
complete it % What are the rest of their members to do % 
Since infallibility is not self-evident, where will they find 
reasons " for the hope that is in them T Must they believe 
the Church iafallible because some of their learned divines 
tell them that, after a long course of theological labour, they 
can prove it from a book of the highest human authority % 
Does it not thus appear that faith in the infallibility of the 
Church, both of the learned and the ignorant, rests only on 
human authority % And does not this reciprocal proving, first 



58 Roman Catholicism, 

from the Bible as a human book that the Church is infallible, 
and then by the voice of the Church that this same human 
book is inspired, seem too much like paying a debt of 
gratitude to this book, by conferring upon it the title of in- 
spired, because it has done service to the Church % Such a 
process is calculated to destroy all faith both in the Bible 
and the Church. 

If the Bible is inspired, that inspiration must be its all- 
pervading element ; it must be the stamp impressed upon it 
by its Divine Author, so that every soul thirsting after truth 
may readily perceive it and be satisfied. If an extraneous 
authority, and that, too, an authority having not a self-evi- 
dent and palpable, but only a demonstrable claim to infalli- 
bility, gives the. Bible its certificate of inspiration, there is 
every reason for looking upon it with suspicion. Hence the 
Church of Home, by thus dealing with the rule of faith, 
appears to me to lead us into a labyrinth of doubt and un- 
certainty. 

Let us suppose, now, the Roman Catholic has proved the 
authenticity, genuineness and truth of the Bible as a human 
composition, how does he prove from it that the episcopate, 
•as the successors of the Apostles, are endowed with infalli- 
bility? 

He endeavours to prove it, first, from all those texts con- 
taining the promises of Christ to the Apostles and the 
Church, securing their infallibility and consequent authority. 
** Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
(Matt, xxviii, 20.) "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock 
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it." (Matt, xvi, 18.) "Ye are witnesses of these 
things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon 
you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be en- 



Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility, 59 

dued witli power from on high." (Luke xxiv, 47-49.) "When 
the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all 
truth." (John xvi, 13.) From these and similar promises, 
it is contended that Christ promised to be with His Church 
to the end of the world ; he promised her the Holy Ghost 
to be with her and lead her into all truth ; that the Holy 
Spirit descended visibly upon the Apostles on the day of 
Pentecost, and that he was with them in their first council 
at Jerusalem, and guided them to infallible decrees. 

We answer that, although these and similar texts prove 
that the Apostles were especially assisted by the Holy 
Ghost, as founders of the Church, none of them promises in- 
fallibility either to the whole body of the Church, or to the 
episcopate alone. We grant that the Holy Ghost was to be 
with the Church, as well as with the Apostles, until the end 
of the world j but we maintain that we must also admit a 
difference in the manner in which he assists either. Surely, 
no one will pretend that He was to be manifested in the same 
form and measui*e to the Apostles and to the Church, after 
their death. 

How are we to settle this point, since Scripture appears to 
be silent about it ! We thiak, the nature of the Apostolic 
of&ce and mission and that of the Church after their death 
gives us a clear and definite answer to the question. He 
was with the Apostles in their official capacity as witnesses 
in order to give an infallible testimony of what Christ had 
taught and done for us. We think it a significant fact that 
there were only twelve apostles and that they were specially 
chosen by Christ, iq order that none might arrogate to him- 
self the same privileges which they, as the chosen twelve, 
possessed. St. Paul was a particular vessel of election ; he 
was a witness of the revelation he had especially re- 



60 Roman Catholicism. 

ceivedj but we find that none whom the Apostles or- 
dained claimed or enjoyed the same privileges. To the 
apostles the truth was delivered by Christ and the Holy 
Spirit; they were the original receivers', they planted the 
faith by teaching what was necessary to be believed ; and 
they established the Church. And like the inspired prophets 
of old. they were moved not only to teach by word of mouth, 
but also to deposit the saving truth in written records, for 
the sure guidance and salvation of future generations. The 
Holy Ghost was with them both as witnesses and as writers, 
in order to establish the truths of Christianity in the world. 
Certainly we all agree that the Church was to be built on an 
infallible foundation, and that therefore the apostles as such 
were alone endowed with the gift of infallibility. 

But we see also clearly that, when the Church of Christ 
was once founded by the apostles, and when the needful 
amount of revealed truth was once infallibly recorded in a 
book, no infallible authority was necessary for the teaching 
body of the Church, since its functions differed widely from 
those of the apostles. The certainty that its dogmatic system 
is contained in, and conformable with the Bible is sufficient 
for the guidance of men ; and this certainty may safely be 
attained by comparing both together. Moreover we believe 
that the Holy Ghost assists the sincere enquirer in securing 
this certainty. 

All will concur with us that there is a great difference be- 
tween certainty and infallihility. He that is infallible cannot 
err ; he who is certain can err, but does not err; he has evi- 
dence that he does not err on such or such a point, and 
therefore he is certain. Now we have in the Bible the in- 
fallible deposit of truth, for it is the unerring Word of God ; 
but we have certainty in ourymind when we acquire the truth 



Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 61 

from the Bible.. We may err, but we Have reason to believe 
that we do not err. The Apostles required infallibility in 
writing the Bible, but we do not need that gift in readincr 
and preaching the truths therein contained; certainty is 
all that we want. We are enabled to acquire this certainty 
so far as it is necessary for our welfare ; what more can we 
desire % True, we ought to be constantly on our guard, for, 
as human beings, our intellect is limited and we are liable to 
error ; but God's Spirit assists us in our earnest enquiries, 
and when we are certain of having attained to the truth from 
the infallible Word, let us be content and give thanks to the 
Spirit who vouchsafed to enlighten us. If Eoman Catholics 
had, as reasonable men, been satisfied with this certainty, and 
not aimed too high by endeavouring to give the human mind 
an infallible knowledge of the truth, they would never have 
dreamed of endowing the living voice of the Church with in- 
fallibility, thereby involving themselves in the intricacies 
of a system that oppresses them like an incubus and places 
all reforms within the Church beyond the reach of possibility. 
If we gave to the writings of the Apostles no 'providential 
significance as the depository of divine truth for all ages ; if 
we looked upon them as mere occasional appendages which 
the Church could do well without; if we considered them 
dependent as regards belief in their inspiration, and also their 
true interpretation, on the authority of the post-apostolic 
Church j we might, probably, feel perplexed and allow that 
Roman Catholics appear to be right in claiming continuous 
infallibility for the living voice of the Church. But these 
suppositions have not a shadow of truth in their favour. Do 
not the sacred writers themselves tell us that they write not 
with any transient object, but for the high purpose that we 
may obtain the truth, believe in the liruth and be saved by 



62 Roman Catholicism. 

it % Does St. John consider the Scriptures as mere temporary 
adjuncts, or as passing phenomena in the life of the Church, 
when he says, " These things were wiitten, that ye might be- 
lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing 
ye might have life through His name." (John xx, 31.) Or 
does St. Paul think little of the Bible when he writes, " All 
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right- 
eousness, that the man of God might be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works." (ii. Tim. iii. 16-17.) 
While one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings 
of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the 
necessity or the existence of any other rule of faith. It is an 
historical fact that the teachings of the Apostles, as recorded 
in Holy Scripture, were considered not only during their 
life-time, but immediately after their death, as the only 
depository of divine revelation. If it were otherwise, why 
should they have been read in the Christian assemblies as an 
essential part of their religious services, even during the life- 
time of the Apostles % Why that eagerness to collect them 
immediately into one book % " Considering the poverty of 
the early Christians, the persecutions to which they were 
subject, the imperfect means of multiplying copies of Scrip- 
ture at their disposal, the compar^ttive infrequency of inter- 
communication in those days, the Apostolic writiugs were 
disseminated with a rapidity and acknowledged with a uni- 
versality of consent truly wonderful." (Hodge's Outlines of 
Theol., p. 98). 

And does not this plainly show that they were more than 
mere accidental appendages of the Church, and rather held a 
providential place in God's spiritual government? If we 
read the writings of the early fathers oi the Church, especi- 



Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 63 

ally those wlio lived in the Apostolic age, we find that they 
looked upon the Scriptures of the New Testament as the in- 
spired Word of God, and quoted copiously from their pages. 
However carefully we may examine these patristic writings, 
we cannot find any organized body of Churchmen, in those 
early times, claiming the gift of infallibility. On the con- 
trary, all controversies of faith were settled by appealing to 
the Scriptures and the teaching of the Apostles as contained 
in their wiitings. Although owing to the difierent schools, 
of philosophy, from which converts were made to Christianity 
religious controversies, in those early times, were more num- 
erous and subtle than in our own days; yet the simple appeal 
to Scripture was considered sufficient to settle them. In the 
interpretation of Scripture, sound common sense, under the 
guidance of the Holy Ghost, was employed; and as this is 
universal, and eccentricity the exception, appeal was some- 
times made to the catholic or universal belief of Christians, 
not because this universal consent was considered the in- 
fallible depository of faith, but as an external and additional 
argument against the heretics of the time. This appeal 
however was not intended to prove the doctrines in question, 
but only to confirm the proofs taken from Scripture. What 
we have here briefly stated, in these paragraphs, as undoubted 
facts, may be easily verified by any impartial enquirer who 
will take the trouble of reading the works of the early Chris- 
tian writers, or of consulting the productions of our learned 
divines, where ample quotations from the Fathers are given 
in proof of these statements. 

From what we have said it may be safely concluded that 
Christ and the Holy Ghost were present in a difierent manner 
with the Apostles to that they were or are with the post- Apos- 
tolic Church. With the Apostles they were present in their 



6^ Roman Catholicism. 

teachings and writings in order to infallibly establish the 
Church on a sure foundation and to give us the deposit of faith 
for all ages. This required infallibility. With the post- Apos- 
tolic Church the Spirit is present in order to preserve and 
guard the Bible, and preach the doctrines therein con- 
tained. This does not require infallibility, the former being 
the continual acknowledgment of an historical fact estab- 
lished by the Apostles and the latter a viva-voce repetition 
and explanation of doctrines contained in the sacred records. 
The office of the Church, since the death of the apostles, has 
been to use all her endeavors to have the Scriptures preserved, 
propagated, preached, read both at public worship and in 
private, meditated upon and practised. Thus the Word of 
God is the infallible, the only infallible element of the 
Church, and the Holy Ghost pervading the Church certainly 
establishes His kingdom in the hearts of believers. 

A certain degree of authority, far different from infalli- 
bility, was claimed by the episcopate of the first ages of 
Christianity. They took their arguments, in refuting here- 
tics and schismatics, from the written Word of God, not from 
their own authority — their own ipse dixit. It was only when 
the episcopate obtained high political influence that it lost 
the primitive Apostolic spirit, becoming haughty and des- 
potic, and arrogating to itself the attribute of infallibility, 
an attribute which only the greatest spiritual despotism has 
ventured to assert. This despotism of a pretended infalli- 
bility commenced with the dawn of the Church's political 
influence, under the emperor Constantino; extended itself 
gradually over a wider field of jurisdiction; was at its height 
in the middle ages, when it possessed the full power of 
crushing in the bud any attempt to resist its usurped 
authority; became at last an intolerable scourge of mankind; 



Scripture Arguments in Favour of Infallibility. 65 

until God took pity on Christendom and by tlie Reformation 
struck the first heavy blow at its unwarrantable assumptions. 
Since then it has lost a great deal of its external rigour and 
splendour; and yet in spirit it exists the same as before. 
We think that the history of this spiritual absolutism claim- 
ing infallibility bears sufficient evidence that Christ did not 
wish his Church to be deemed infallible, in the sense of 
Roman Catholicism. Could Christ be with His Church, 
could He send the Holy Spirit for the purpose of creating 
such a spiritual despotism as the pages of history reveal to 
usl Impossible. 

But Roman Catholics insist that the promises of Christ to 
the Apostles must have a different meaning from that which 
we give them, because the Church as a living society insti- 
tuted by Christ is a witness of Christ and His doctrine, by 
her constant profession and teaching, so that, as the Apostles 
were the immediate witnesses, each generation of the Church 
is also a witness of the teaching of the one immediately pre- 
ceding it. They argue that such is the nature of the witness- 
bearing of a living society, that, while one generation is in 
full vigour, the preceding one still lives (though gradually 
departing out of existence) to correct any erroneous teaching 
of its actual successor j whilst the next generation is in its 
youth and may be carefully taught by its predecessor. Thus 
three generations always exist partially together, and may 
aid and correct each other in their testimony. This is the 
only way in which the Church, as a living society, bears un- 
interrupted testimony to the Apostolical teaching. Who 
does not see that both the writings and the oral teachings of 
the Apostles come within the scope of her witness-bearing 1 
You cannot know what the Apostles taught, nor can you 
even believe in the Bible as the Word of God except on the 

5 



66 Roman Catholicism. 

testimony of the Church. This uninterrupted testimony of 
the Church, in her capacity as witness, may in a, comprehen- 
sive sense, be called tradition. The Bible itself is a part of 
this tradition-system; it has been handed down, together 
with the other portions of the teachings of Christ, by the 
Church as a living witness of God's revealed truths. If then, 
they conclude, the promises of Christ are to have their ac- 
complishment, if there must consequently be an infallible 
element within the Church, we cannot but admit that the 
Church must be itself infallible. 

Let us examine this argument in our next Lecture. 



LECTUEE IV. 

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE 
GHUROH'S OFFICE AS WITNESS-BEARER — TRADI- 
TION. 

WE concluded our last lecture with the argument of the 
Boman Catholics that the Church must be infallible 
on account of her office as witness. They endeavour to 
strengthen their position by arguing in the following 
manner : No doubt, we agree with you that the principal 
mission of the apostles was to be '' witnesses of all things 
which Christ did" (Acts x., 39), and that "they were 
witnesses chosen before God" (Acts x., 41) j but we dissent 
from you in regard to the perj^etuity of this office of witness- 
bearing. We maintain that all those offices and gifts of 
which Christ, in conferring them, expressly declared that 
they should continue " unto the end of the world " and reach 
" all nations," did not die out with the apostles, but became 
the heritage of the Church. Now, that this witness-bearing 
of the apostles is one of these offices can be easily proved 
from different texts of Scripture ; for Christ says, " And this 
Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for 
a witness unto all nations ^^ (Matt, xxiv., 14) ; and again, 
" Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in 
all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of 
of the earth'' (Acts i., 8); and in another place, "Go ye, 
therefore, and teach all nations; and lo I am with you 



68 Roman Catholicism, 

alway, even unto the end of the worlds (Matt, xxviii., 19-20.) 
Now if we reflect that the office of witness is given in connec- 
tion with the promise of the Spirit^s assistance, we must con- 
clude that the Church, too, in her witness-bearing capacity- 
enjoys the same divine aid, and is consequently infallible. 

We answer that, whilst we agree with the Koman Catholics 
that the Church is a witness, we dissenc from them as to the 
manner in which she performs this function. Of course, as a 
living society she cannot but bear witness of the life and doc- 
trine of her Founder ; at the same time we contend that this 
witness-bearing consists in preserving and keeping the Book 
written by the inspii^ed prophets and apostles on whom she is 
built, and in preaching the doctrines therein contained. For 
this purpose she need not be endowed with an infallible 
mouth ; certainty is all that is required, and this she may obtain 
by using an adequate amount of application and care. Nor do 
we consider this witness-bearing of the Church absolutely 
necessary to assure us that the Bible is inspired, for as a rule 
of faith the Book must be altogether independent of any- 
thing anterior ; we must take it on its own merits, or we 
cannot possibly have a rule of faith at all. 

Whilst we higlijy respect the testimony of the Church, 
Koman Catholics, here as elsewhere, go beyond the limits of 
due deference, by endowing that testimony with infallibility. 
We tell them that, instead of making matters of faith clearer 
and easier, by this adventitious aid, they necessarily involve 
themselves in a maze of perplexity ; for the testimony of a 
continuous and ever-living society differs essentially from 
that of an individual ; and therefore we must pay attention 
to the past as well as to the present. 

Roman Catholics teach that, in regard to the present, the 
living voice of the episcopate is the infallible witness of 



The Church! s Office as Witness-bearer. 69 

Christ's doctrine, and that, with reference to the past, oral tra- 
dition occupies the place of the same infallible testimony of the 
Church j for what else is oral tradition but the teaching of 
different generations of the Church so closely and unin- 
terruptedly linked together in their life and belief that, by 
word of mouth, one generation or traditional line hands down 
the teaching of Christ and his Apostles to the next one, and 
so on, to our own day '? Even the Bible is but the written 
portion of this tradition-system. 

Thus, by the very nature of their system, they are com- 
pelled to defend the infallibility of tradition, as a part of the 
infallibility-doctrine of their Church ; and this they do with 
characteristic zeal. But who fails to perceive that this must 
involve their whole system in a labyrinth of difficulties *? 

However ingeniously and subtly Boman Catholic divines 
may philosophize about the certainty of oral tradition, we 
maintain that their arguments are singularly inconclusive. 
There are very few cases in which oral tradition communi- 
cates the knowledge of facts and truths even with a slight 
degree of probability. We give little credence to those parts 
of the history of nations which are handed down to us by 
this channel of communication, and for the most part regard 
them as legendary tales and romantic visions. We find it 
difficult to acquire any accurate knowledge of a fact that 
happens in our own day and generation; how utterly 
impossible, then, must it be for us to search through a long 
series of traditional lines and trace, with certainty, to their 
beginning facts that happened many centuries ago ? If the 
tradition be purely oral, we are absolutely without any guide 
to direct our researches. How can we possibly prove that 
certain facts occurred in bygone ages, without recourse to 
written documents ? Surely it is not enough to say that the 



70 Roman Catholicism. 

present generation believes them, having received them by oral 
tradition. Moreover the difficulty increases, when the objects 
of this oral communication are not merely simple events, but a 
whole system of religious doctrine transcending man's mental 
capacities and warring against his natural inclinations, and 
a whole body of liturgical ordinances and disciplinary observ- 
ances, — the very things which would be most likely to be 
corrupted in the process of oral transmission from generation 
to generation. 

This uncertainty of oral tradition has been felt from the 
very dawn of man's history. It is but natural to suppose 
that it would be the earliest method of transmitting from 
father to son the events of the past, and in those early ages 
when the human race was not large and men lived several 
hundred years, this channel may have been adequate and 
trustworthy for a considerable time. But experience soon 
taught them that they must have a surer way of handing 
down history to future generations. For this purpose, they 
invented hieroglyphics, commemorative observances and, 
finally, writing. We consider it a conclusive proof against oral 
tradition that with the invention of writing commences the 
authentic and reliable history of man. It is in the very nature 
of things that mere communications by word of mouth are 
soon forgotten or distorted, but that which is written 
remains — litera sqripta manet We believe that writing is a 
providential gift of God bestowed on man to perpetuate 
safely His revealed truths to the end of the world ; nay, it 
is a preliminary act in the divine dispensations. Like 
revelation itself, writing is an element in God's plan of 
educating mankind ; whilst oral tradition, instead of having 
an elevating tendency, keeps man where he is, and instead 
of imbuing his mind with certainty, would leave him a 



The Church's Office as Witness-bearer. 71 

prey to legendary tales and superstitious beliefs and ob- 
servances. 

But our Roman Catholic brethren answer that the tradi- 
tion of Christ's Church is not merely oral, since it has also been 
written down. It is oral in its nature, but it has also been 
committed to writing as an external means of confirming us 
in our adherence to the infallible voice of the Church. They 
tell us that it is embalmed in creeds and liturgies, in the 
decrees and canons of general and particular councils, in the 
writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church. 

If you ask them whether all these writings are the tradi- 
tion of the Church, they answer: No; but only those por- 
tions which bear witness to what was believed as Catholic 
doctrine in those days. And if you ask them again, how you 
may find out what is testimony and what individual opinion 
in these writings, they will give you the following rule: 
Quod semper, uhique et ah omnibus creditum est — what has 
been believed always, everywhere, and by all, is Catholic 
doctrine. In other words : Read all these wiitings, and that 
in which they all agree is the semper, uhique et ah omnibus 
credituni — the common faith of the Church in all times and 
places. 

Let us pause here. That, then, is oral tradition. Why, 
it is not oral tradition after all. Roman Cabholics have to 
come to our way of thinking that the Word of God is given 
to us in written records. We were told by them that the 
Scriptures were obscure, insufficient, and so difficult of com- 
prehension that they could never be an independent rule of 
faith for man, and we were promised a;n easier way of ascer- 
taining divine truth. Butwhat have we here*? A rule that, 
on account of its vastness, must overwhelm any sincere en- 
quirer after truth. In order to give an account of the hope 
that is in him, and to fully satisfy his mind that a doctrine 



72 Roman Catholicism, 

is catholic and contained within the depository of faith, called 
tradition, he must wade through a whole library of fathers 
and doctors of the Church, acts of councils, liturgies, &c., 
and that not in a desultory manner, but in a critical spirit, 
comparing work with work, until he finds the doctrines upon 
which all are agreed. And if we consider the great number 
of truths revealed by God, and if in regard to each of these 
this process must be repeated, we may well ask in astonish- 
ment, would it be possible for man, if such were the rule of 
faith, ever to acquire an intelligent conviction of the dogmas 
proposed for his belief? Would it be possible for any human 
being to undertake this huge task and complete it successfully? 

To this difficulty they reply that the Church performs this 
task for every one of her members. How so % What is this 
Church but the bishops % Are they not individually fallible 
human beings % And must not this task be undertaken by 
them individually before they can give a decision collectively? 
They meet the difficulty by endowing the episcopate as a body 
with infallibility. But do they not also teach that this gift 
of infallibility is not an inspiration, but only an assistance 
of God's Spirit, and presupposes faithful enquiry ^nto the 
whole field of tradition, so as to discover what has always, 
everywhere, and by all, been believed? And can they 
expect that, if this enquiry be neglected or carelessly con- 
ducted, the Spirit's assistance will be given them in their col- 
lective decree 1 Has it come to this that the members of the 
Church must resign themselves altogether into the hands of 
the bishops who may after all be incapable or careless enquirers 
after truth? 

And now since the Vatican council they maintain that 
the pope alone can infallibly pronounce what doctrines are or 
are not to be found in this depository of tradition. But if. 



The Church's Office as Witness-bearer. 73 

according to theii^ system, papal infallibility is not an inspira- 
tion, but an assistance in enquiry, the pope is bound to per- 
form the almost superhuman work of examining critically the 
whole vast body of tradition, before he is justified in giving 
an infallible decree, ex cathedra. Can he perform this work 
for himself, amidst the many cares of his government, or 
do others do it for him ? If so, how is h» certain that his 
theologians have performed it properly ? And is he justified 
in giving a decree without this certainty ? 

Here E-oman Catholics have to solve smother difficulty. 
Do they not prove the infallibility of their Church from tradi- 
tion % But we have already seen that they prove the infalli- 
bility of tradition by the infallibility of the Church, and is 
this not reasoning in a circle — a fault unpardonable in logi- 
cians ] They cannot say here, as they said in regard to the 
Scripture proof in favor of infallibility, that they consider 
tradition under a twofold aspect, and thus avoid contradic- 
tion j for they teach that oral tradition and the living voice 
of the Church are one and the same thing ; to prove, there- 
fore, the one by the other would be proving the same thing 
by the same. 

Nor can they escape .the difficulty by saying that the 
bishops, as successors of the Apostles, have received the deposi- 
turn of faith from the great Head of the Church to be trans- 
mitted by them from generation to generation; and that, 
holding this authoritative commission, they have no need of 
disinterring the records of past ages to prove their infalli- 
bility. But, then, to prove their commission, they must 
prove their uninterrupted Apostolical succession, and for the 
proof of this succession they go to tradition. Can they, at 
the same time, be allowed to give their own evidence as to 
the authority of that tradition % This would be describing a 
(jircle, — a gross sophism. 



74 Roman Catholicism, 

Now, why should God make use of such an uncertain 
method of diffusing and preserving His precious revelation? 
Why should He use an instrument so much exposed to attack 
from enemies of the truth? Why should He ordain, in His 
all-wise providence, that some of His revealed truths should 
be written down, and for this end inspire the writers, and 
that- another part should not be written at all but left to the 
chances of oral tradition % Why should we admit this want of 
uniformity in the most momentous affair of life % We see 
no reason for it ; nay, we have reasons for the contrary sup- 
position. 

We find that Christ more than once inveighed against the 
Pharisees on account of their traditions (Matt, xv., 3-^6; 
Mark vii., 9-13). He tells them that by their traditions 
they place burdens on men's shoulders which God did not 
wish them to place there. He rebukes them for adhering 
more to their traditions than to thje Word of God. He 
reproaches them for obscuring the Scriptures by their tradi- 
tions. He never refers to tradition except to condemn it. 
Is not this a proof that no part of God's revelation was handed 
down by tradition? Christ tells us what evil consequences 
had resulted from the regard which was paid by the Jews to 
tradition ; and St. Peter speaks of their vain conversation as 
received by tradition, showing thereby that tradition handed 
them down nothing from God. Besides, has not tradition 
been the veil which has hindered them from understanding 
their own Scriptin^es, and recognizing in Christ the promised 
Messiah % But if God did not employ tradition under the 
Old Law why should we suppose that, without telling us of 
the alteration, He employs it in the New Dispensation? 
And if tradition has been productive of so many evils to 
Jews, why should we believe that it is of superior authority 



The ClmrcJis Office as Witness-beaver, 75 

now, and tliat it will not be productive of similar evils to Chris- 
tians % And let us ask, whether among the warnings of the 
New Testament none are to be found against the traditions 
of men? Is there not this solemn warning, ^^ Beware lest any 
man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men" (Col. ii., 8)? Christ himself, in His 
disputations with the Jews, never appealed to their tradi- 
tions, but invariably to the Scriptures, giving us thereby to 
understand that, as in the Old Testament divine revelation 
was* deposited in a book, so it should likewise be under the 
New Dispensation. He never appealed to the authority of 
the Sanhedrim, the supreme council of the Jewish priest- 
hood, but to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith. 

If we compare the Jewish system of tradition which our 
Saviour so strongly condemned with that of the Church of 
Rome, we find that they are strictly analogous. I cannot do 
better than give a resume of this analogy extracted from the 
learned and erudite work of Dr. Peck, — "Appeal from Tra- 
dition to Scripture and Comm^on Sense :^^ — 

" Both Jews and Boman Catholics trace their traditions 
to God, the former through Moses, the latter through the 
Apostles. Both regard them as a supplement to and com- 
mentary upon the written Law, transmitted through a regu- 
lar succession of divinely appointed ministers. In both 
systems, the traditions which had accumulated to an indefi- 
nite extent came finally to be written down by the doctors. 
Among the Jews, Rahhi Judah, called Hahkadosh, collected 
what were considered the genuine traditions into one book 
called the Mishna, which forthwith obtained great authority. 
The oral traditions of the Christian Church, first reduced to 
writing we are told by the the Boman Catholics, are the 
creeds, the liturgies, the decrees oi councils, the Aposuoli- 



76 Roman Catholicism, 

cai canons, and Apostolical constitutions. But in both 
systems these oral traditions were considered inadequate. 
Hence the Jews both in Judea and Babylonia made com- 
ments on the Mishna, and thus originated the two Talmuds, 
that is, the Babylonish Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, 
and these comments are called the Gemara. The writings 
of Yincentius Lirinensis in the fifth century, Peter Lombard 
of the twelfth, and Thomas Aquinas of the thirteenth supply 
the place of the Jewish Gemara. Again, both Jews and 
Christians have elevated their traditions above, and at the 
expense of the Written Word, and palmed the grossest 
puerilities and blasphemies upon the infinitely wise and 
holy God, on the authority of tradition. The result of this 
traditionary system, both among Jews and Boman Catho- 
lics, has been to restrict the reading of the Scriptures, nay, 
almost to proscribe them." 

We are fully convinced that the Boman Catholic system 
of tradition has the same character and the same defects as 
that of the Jews. Now, if Christ condemned the latter in 
the strongest terms, why should we not follow His example 
and reject the former ? 

Let us follow the system of the true Jews approved by 
Christ Himself. Both Boman Catholics and Protestants 
agree that the Old Testament is the type of the Christian 
Dispensation; that the New Law is foreshadowed in the 
Old Law. Now, under the Old Covenant the Written Word 
of God was the rule of faith ; it must therefore be the same in 
the New Dispensation. Under the Old Testament the San- 
hedrim or Supreme Council of the priesthood was not in- 
vested with infallible authority ; under the New Testament, 
therefore, the episcopate is not endowed with infallibility in 
teaching. Under the Old Law the revealed truths were first 



The Church's Office as Witness-bearer. 77 

made known and given to the people by word of mouth 
through the prophets j under the New Law the same was 
done by the mouth of Christ and His Apostles. Under the 
Old Law the Word of God was afterwards written down by 
the prophets in order to serve after their death as a rule of 
faith to the Jews ; the same was done under the New Law 
by the Apostles, in order that the Christians might have an 
infallible rule of faith. In the Old Dispensation not all the 
prophets wrote ; in the New Dispensation not all the 
Apostles were moved by the Spirit to write. In the Old 
Testament not all that was revealed to the prophets was 
written down ; in the New Testament all that Christ taught 
and did is not written down. In the Old Dispensation, that 
which was written down was considered a sufficient rule of 
faith j in the New Dispensation, what was written down by 
the Apostles, together with the books in the Jewish Canon 
of Scripture, was considered a sufficient rule of faith by the 
first Christians and by all those who since have followed in 
their steps. Under the Old Law, the sacred writings show no 
trace of human art, are written in the most simple style, and 
adapted to the capacities of allj the same is the case under the 
New Law, where the writings bear the same impress of a 
Providential agency. Under the Old Dispensation the ex- 
pounders of Scriptures were not considered infallible ; there- 
fore, the claim to infallibility ought not to be made by the 
episcopate under the Christian Dispensation, 

But Roman Catholics maintain that the unbroken succes- 
sion of prophets in the Old Law supplied the place of infal- 
libility ; there being no such succession in the New 
Law, the teaching body of the Churck requires to be endowed 
with infallibility. 

We deny the continual succession of prophets ; let Homan 



78 Roman Catholicism, 

Catholics establish it if they can. Besides, God sent 
His prophets not to give infallibility to antecedent prophe- 
cies, but to prepare the people by degrees for the coming of 
the Messiah. When He had come, no new prophets were 
required. His way had been prepared by the prophets, end- 
ing with John the Baptist. The fulness of time had arrived, 
and revelation was completed by the Son of God. His work 
and His words became historical facts which were recorded 
in a book by the inspired Apostles, and on them and the 
prophets the Church was built. The Holy Ghost supplied 
henceforth the place of the succession of prophets. All that 
was required to the end of the world was that His doctrine 
be accepted and established in the hearts of men. The in- 
fallible Word of God, which has an innate efficacy, and the 
grace of the Holy Ghost were amply sufficient for this end. 



LECTUEE V. 

TRADITION AND SCRIPTURS— REVIEW OF THE ARGU- 
MENTS DRA WN FROM THE CHURCH'S OFFICE AS ■ 
GUARDIAN AND KEEPER OF THE BIBLE. 

ROMAN Catholics, in order to defend their system of 
tradition as a rule of faith, maintain that it is clearly- 
set forth in the Scriptures of the New Testament. They con- 
tend that it is contained in the very commission which Christ 
gave to His Apostles ; for He commanded them to preach, not 
to write; from which they conclude that preaching, not 
writing, was to be the means by which His doctrine was to 
be propagated and preserved ; and if so, tradition or oral 
communication was to be the principal depository of faith, 
and writing only an appendage. 

We answer that the oral teachings of the Apostles were 
a rule of faith to those who heard them, nor do we deny that 
if there were sufficient evidence of the transmission of the 
words or the sense of their oral discourses through the 
channel of tradition, such words or the sense thereof would 
be a rule of faith to us ; for our faith must be based on the 
preaching of the Apostles in whatever way that preaching 
may reach us. But we maintain that we have no evidence 
that it comes to us through the medium of tradition ; nay, 
we have shown the contrary. We believe that the Bible is 
the only safe source from which we can draw the teaching 
of the Apostles. 



80 Roman Catholicism, 

True, preaching is the ordinary means of diffusing the 
Gospel j but is it not clear that the matter of preaching 
must be taken from, and based upon, some depository '? The 
Apostles preached as witnesses and heavenly-appointed 
messengers, with the extraordinary mission of planting the 
Church. Their preaching, therefore, was based upon the 
immediate revelation of God. But the preaching of the 
post- Apostolic Church is founded upon that of the Apostles. 
Now, how could it be founded upon it, unless it be contained 
in some depository given by the Apostles themselves ? And 
if this depository be the preaching of the Church from gen- 
eration to generation, or in other words, oral tradition, how 
can we prove the orthodoxy of our present preaching, 
except by appealing to the preaching of the preceding genera- 
tions, which, besides being morally impossible, would also be 
begging the question — proving the tradition by tradition. 
The correctness of the preaching of those who take the Bible 
as the only standard of faith can easily be ascertained by any 
one who reads the sacred book ; whilst the truth of the 
preaching of those who gather their doctrine from the vast, 
uncertain and obscure field of tradition cannot be satisfactorily 
proved, even by the learned divine. The evangelical minister 
cannot impose upon the people, while the traditionist, who 
knows that his hearers must take for granted what he 
preaches, may easily impose upon their credulity. 

Boman Catholic divines contend that there are several 
texts in which the Apostles expressly teach that there are 
doctrines they did not write down, but which, as a sacred 
deposit, have been handed down in the Church by oral tradi- 
tion. They adduce ii Tim. i., 13 : " Hold fast the form of 
sound words which thou hast heard of me." The Bhemish 
translators of the New Testament say in their note : '' The 



The Churches Office as Keeper of the Bible, 81 

Apostles did set down a platform of faith, doctrine, and 
phrase of catholic speech and preaching, and that not so 
much by writing, as we here see, as by word of mouth : to 
which he referreth Timothy over and above in his epistle to 
him. And how precisely Christian doctors ought to keep 
the form of words anciently appropriated to the mysteries 
and matters of our religion. '* 

We answer that this text proves merely tl^at St. Paul had 
given his beloved son Timothy a '' delineation of sound 
words " — vTtorvTtGodiv vyiaivoyzGov Xdyoov — which evi- 
dently is a summary of the Gospel-system ; and he exhorts 
him to hold it fast. What has that to do with oral tradition 
as a system % Of course, the discourses of the Apostles were 
to those who heard them a rule of faith. We say with 
Irenseus (Lib. III., cap. 4) : ^^ The Apostles preached the 
Gospel, and after, by the will of God, delivered it to us in 
writing, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith." 

But they insist further that St. Paul proceeds to say in 
the following verse, " That good thing (literally, that good 
deposit) which was committed unto thee keep, by the Holy 
Ghost which dwelleth in us." Now, this deposit must be 
something different from Scripture, probably a creed. 

We answer, that it has to be seen what this good de- 
posit — rrfv KaXrfy itocpaKara^rj' xrjv — means; supposing it to 
denote the Christian doctrine, the text only enjoins Timothy 
to keep it safe, and is entirely silent as to its being inde- 
pendent of, and distinct from, the doctrines that are recorded 
in Scripture. But as St. Paul, in the preceding verse, has 
spoken of the " delineation of sound words,^ it is probable 
that he is speaking here of something else, probably of his 
oflS.ce or gifts. The word itapaKara^rfKr] here has evidently 
the same meaning as in verse 12, where a similar phrase 

6 



82 Roman Catholicism. 

occurs — rrfv Ttapa^Tj^nr/v jxov (pvXd^ai — and where it 
probably means the gifts he had received. 

They adduce, moreover, the following passages in support 
of their doctrine : " And keep the ordinances (traditions) as 
I delivered them unto you" (i Cor. xi. 2) and "Therefore, 
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have 
been taught whether by word or by our epistle" (ii Thess. ii. 
15). From these texts they conclude that the Word of God 
is twofold, written and unwritten, and that the Apostle 
teaches that both are to be held in equal veneration ; that 
the unwritten word, called tradition, is distinct from Scrip- 
ture and handed down to us by word of mouth. 

We answer that the Greek word 7tapa8o6i'i, translated 
tradition, is of more extensive signification than the word 
tradition, in the E-oiaan Catholic sense. It means any pre- 
cept, instruction or ordinance that is delivered either in 
writing or by word of mouth. The Apostle, therefore, means 
the doctrines or ordinances which he had taught the Thessa- 
lonians both orally and in his epistle. Of course, both com- 
munications were to be believed with equal veneration by 
those who received them from the Apostles. But the words 
do not imply that, in succeeding ages, whatever is reported 
by the Church as the unwritten word of God should be 
believed as revealed truth. We say with Cranmer : *^ I grant 
that Paul taught many things by word of mouth, which he 
wrote not in his epistles to the Thessalonians. But how shall 
they prove that the same things be neither written by him 
in any other of his epistles, or in any other place of the whole 
Bible ? For what argument is this 1 It is not written in 
this place or to those persons ; ergo, it is not written in the 
the Scripture at all. For the shortness of one epistle, or of 
one sermon, cannot sufficiently contain all things necessary 



The Churches Office as Keeper of the Bible. 83 

for our salvation ; and therefore be there many books of the 
Scripture, that what is so omitted, or not spoken of in one 
place, or else darkly spoken of, might be plainly written in 
another place. And for this cause St. Paul writeth to the 
Colossians, saying, "When this letter is read with you,* cause 
it also to be read to the Laodiceans. And read you also the 
epistle written from Laodicea." (Cranmer, Confutation of 
Unwritten Verities, ch. x.) 

Roman Catholics contend that the whole of God's revela- 
tion is not contained in the written Word of God ; there 
must, therefore, be an unwritten word — oral tradition — dis- 
tinct from Scripture, to supply the deficiencies of the Bible. 
They endeavour to prove by different texts that the whole 
revelation is not recorded therein. 

We answer: True, not all that Christ did and taught is 
written down, but we strongly maintain that what is recorded 
is sufficient for us ; and this the Bible plainly teaches. Let 
me adduce a few texts. 

St. Paul says, (ii Tim. iii., 15-17): "From a child thou hast 
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee 
wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 
Ail Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
rightousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works." What words could more 
clearly prove the sufficiency of the Scriptures than these 1 
From a child Timothy had known the Scriptures; there- 
fore, they are adapted even to children. They are able to 
make us wise unto salvation; therefore, they are not mere 
words without meaning. All Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion; therefore, not a dead letter; for the Holy Spirit 
breathes in it. They are profitable for all the great pur- 



84 Roman Catholicism. 

poses of our holy religion — " profitable for doctrine, for re- 
proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." And 
does not all this mean that they are sufficient for our salva- 
tion and well-being here and hereafter ? 

Ag^in, we read (Rom. xv., 4): "Whatsoever things were 
written aforetime were written for our learning; that we 
through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have 
hope." Thus the Scriptures give us learning, and that learn- 
ing imparts to us the comfort of hope. Could they effect 
this, if they were insufficient ? 

They are sufficient, indeed, for finding Christ. " Search 
the Scriptures ; they are they which testify of Me." (John 
v., 39.) Where else do we learn Christ but in the Scriptures? 
Let Roman Catholics point out what tradition teaches about 
Him % The worthlessness of tradition in regard to Christ 
should alone be a sufficient reason to make us look upon it 
with suspicion* 

St. John says : " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the 
presence of his disiples which are not written in this book ; 
but these are written that ye might believe that J esus is the 
Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have 
life through his name." Now, if one Gospel was sufficient 
for this great end, how much more the whole Bible ? And if 
the Old Testament Scriptures are extolled by Christ Himself 
and His Apostles, as being sufficient to lead us to Him, 
how much more abundant will be our profit if we add to 
them the writings of the New Testament ! 

We have sufficient reason to distinguish two parts in the 
revelation of God, namely, things of a general or catholic 
import, and things of a local and individual bearing. The 
former are those truths which are necessary to the salvation 
and essential well-being of all mankind; they give to reve- 



The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 85 

lation the claim to catholicity. They have been written 
down. The latter comprise those things which God did in 
regard to particular persons and nations. They have not all 
been recorded in the Bible ; for as soon as those nations and 
individuals ceased to exist, such matters lost their impor- 
tance. Only some instances which serve us as examples for 
imitation, or as warnings, have been written down. In the 
Old Testament many dispensations have been recorded which 
are only of individual, local or national importance j for the 
Old Law was more or less confined to the Jews, as the chosen 
people of God;, whilst the New Testament bears decidedly a 
catholic character. 

But the advocates of Church infallibility ask, ^^ Who has 
given us the Bible but the Church ? Who tells us that it is 
inspired ? Who determines its canon but the Church ? Who 
preserves it intact but the Church 1 You cannot, therefore, 
believe the Scriptures as such, unless you believe first the in- 
fallibility of the Church. 

Let us examine these questions. Who has given us the 
Word of God '? Not the Church, in the Boman Catholic 
sense of the word. The prophets and Apostles, the founders 
of the Church, gave it. In the same manner as the prophets 
of old gave their inspired writings to the Jewish nation, the 
chosen people of God, so the Apostles, the witnesses and 
messengers of Christ, who, in many ways, proved that they 
had received the Holy Ghost, gave the Christian people their 
writings c-ontaining a record of the wonderful words and 
deeds of t\k Son of God. With the same certainty of faith 
upon which the Jews believed the Old Testament to be in- 
spired, we may believe the New Testament to be inspired ; 
nay, with more certainty, inasmuch as the Old Testament is 
verified by and realized in the New Testament, the latter being 



86 Roman Catholicism, 

the fnlfijment of the former. This verification and fulfilment 
contribute greatly to strengthen our faith. The Jews had 
the Old Testament without an externally infallible Church ; 
we, therefore, with more reason and certainty, possessing the 
New Testament, may dispense with the infallible voice of the 
Church. 

The decree of the episcopate would only be an external 
proof of the inspiration of the Bible. We have many both 
internal and external proofs of the same inspiration, without 
having recourse to the infallible authority of the Church. 
Kead the book in a proper spirit and I have no doubt you 
will agree with me. As the works of creation bear within 
themselves an objective evidence, that is a reflex of the 
Creative mind, enabling us, who are created in the image 
and likeness of God's mind, to perceive their truth ; so also 
the Bible of God has an internal light and evidence, which, 
coming in contact with the unclouded and unbiassed mind of 
man, convinces him that here is truth that can come from 
no other source but the Infinite Intellect of God. The more 
you study this book in all its relations, the clearer will its 
truth shine upon your mind. It is a book which needs no 
external proofs to assure us of its divine origin j because it 
stands upon its own merits. If it were not so, it could not 
be the rule of faith. 

But if you still demand external arguments, there is no 
necessity for resorting to the infallible authority of the 
Church. To prove by external arguments, that is, by argu- 
ments outside of the book, the inspiration of a sacred writer^ 
it is sufficient to prove the inspiration of th.Q preacher , and that 
his writings agree with his preaching. Granted that the 
written word agrees with the spoken word, to prove the in- 
spiration of the latter is proving the inspiration of the for 



The Church's Office as Keeper of the Bible. 87 

mer. Now, it is an historical fact that the prophets of old 
proved before the whole Jewish nation that they were messen- 
gers of God, and that they spoke the words which God put into 
their mouth, for they produced evidence of their divine 
mission in miracles and prophecy. It is an historical fact 
that what they spoke has been verified both in the history of 
the Jewish and other nations, and especially in the New Dis- 
pensation itself. They were therefore inspired in the words 
they uttered. But the divine messengers, believing the re- 
velation they received from God to be of vast importance, not 
only preached it, but also affirmed that they were moved and 
influenced by the Spirit of God to write it down for the en- 
lightenment and salvation of all future generations. It is 
an historical fact that their writings agreed with their words, 
for the same persons who heard them speak heard also their 
writings read and had, therefore, the amplest opportunity of 
comparing the written with the spoken word. They testi- 
fied by their acts that they found both in agreement. Hence 
it is that with the same veneration which prompted them to 
hear and heed the spoken word, they read or heard read the 
written word ; and as they considered the first to be God's 
revelation, so likewise were they constrained to receive and 
accept the other. 

The same may be said of the New Testament. The Apos- 
tles proved themselves to be divine messengers not only be- 
fore one nation, but before many peoples and nations. As 
the word which they preached was divinely inspired, so was 
likewise the word which they wrote j because all Christen- 
dom bore testimony that their spoken and written words were 
in perfect unisonc Hence the great reverence with which 
the Christians treated the sacred writings of the Apostles j 
hence also the diligence and devotion with which they 



88 Roman Catholicism. 

perused them in their public and private assemblies. All this 
proves that they considered them as their rule of faith and 
practice. The tone of the New Testament writers evidently 
shows that they considered their writings to be the comple- 
tion of the Old Testament j they looked upon themselves, 
therefore, as in the same category or position as the Old 
Testament writers — the prophets; that is, they believed 
themselves to be similarly inspii^ed. They held their mission 
to be that of inspired writers, and God proved to the whole 
world that they were His witnesses and messengers. That 
the Scriptures are inspired has, therefore, been admitted as 
an historical fact ; it required no particular decree of the 
Church to establish them in the minds and affections of 
Christians. We have the Scriptures then, as such, from the 
founders of the Church, not from the Church, in the Roman 
Catholic sense of the word, or from a hierarchy claiming in- 
fallibility. Their inspiration, therefore, besides being proved 
by internal evidence, is also an historical fact supported by 
the greatest authoritative weight of testimony. 

In order to determine the canon or catalogue of the 
Scriptures, we need have no recourse to an infallible decree 
of the Church, but enquire again into history ; for the ques- 
tion on the canon and the inspiration of the Scriptures are, 
in a manner, identical. 

With regard then to all the books of the New Testament, 
written by the Apostles, we conclude that they were written 
by inspiration ; for the Apostles were inspired. Their office 
as founders of the Church demanded this gift ; and the pro- 
mises of Christ, as well as the many miraculous evidences of 
the special presence of fche Holy Ghost proved that they 
possessed it ; hence they repeatedly laid claim to it in their 
writings. But if the inspiration of the New Testament he 



The Churches Office as Keeper of the Bible, 89 

admitted, we must admit that of the Old Testament. Of 
Old Testament Scripture St. Peter testifies that " it came 
not in old time by the will of man, but that holy men spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," (ii Peter i., 21). 
Of Old Testament Scripture generally, St. Paul writes, " that 
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profita- 
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction 
in righteousness." Nay, Christ Himself gives the sanction of 
His authority to Old Testament Scripture, and its three 
great divisions, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, for 
he quoted from them all as authoritative. He de- 
clared that all things must be fulfilled which were wiitten 
concerning Him in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, 
and in the Psalms ; and He exhorted the Jews to search 
those Scriptures in which they believed that they had eter- 
nal life, for these were they which testified of Him. 

The whole body of Christians preserves the Scriptures, and 
God is with His Church in the preservation of His Word. In 
this, partly, consists Christ's presence with His Church, and 
that is, if we may so call it, the external infallibility of the 
Church. Wherever the Scriptures are received, believed, 
and carried out, there is the Church of Christ "built on the 
foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Himself 
being the chief corner-stone." And they are the foundation 
because they have given us the Bible. 



LECTURE YI. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM 
THE GHURGHS OFFICE 4S INTERPRETER OF THE 
BIBLE. 

I'N our review of the proofs in favor of the infallibility of 
the Church we have arrived at those which are taken 
from the relation between the Bible and the Church, and we 
considered in our last lecture the argument of Roman Catho- 
lics, that the Church requires the gift of infallibility as guar- 
dian and keeper of the Bible. We reviewed their doctrine that 
the Church has given us the Bible, determined its canon, and 
preserved it intact from corruption and mutilation. They 
think they have another strong proof for their infallibility- 
doctriue, resulting from the same relation between the Bible 
and the Church. They contend that the Church, as the 
legitimate interpreter of the Bible, requires to be endowed 
with infallibility; for how could we have unreserved confi- 
dence in her interpretations if she were not in possession of 
that gift? As to the necessity for such an interpreter, they 
deduce it from the obscurity of the Bible, and this obscurity 
they think must be admitted by all candid readers of the 
book. Who, they ask, has not met with passages that he 
could not understand ? Who has not met with texts that 
are unintelligible in themselves, and which no parallel pas- 
sages are found to explain ? Ai'e there not some parts which 



The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible, 91 

appear to contradict others? Are there not unfulfilled pro- 
phesies difficult of interpretation? Who can understand the 
allegories, figures, and parables with which it abounds? Are 
there not mysteries of such depth that they require an inter- 
preter to convey them, in some intelligible manner, to men's 
minds'? They maintain that this interpreter can be none 
other than the living voice of the Church, which is commis- 
sioned by Christ to administer to the wants of believers, 
teaching the people, and feeding the lambs and sheep with 
pure doctrine. 

This argument may, at first sight, appear plausible ; it has 
induced some to enter the fold of the Church of Rome, and 
entrust themselves and their intelligence to her guidance and 
authority. True, the Church of Christ is commissioned to 
teach and feed the flock with the Word of God. But we 
maintain that she can perform that office without the gift of 
infallibility. Certainty is all she requires, and this she can 
secure by a proper measure of application and care. 

Indeed, the difficulties of the Bible are greatly exaggerated 
by the advocates of Church infallibility. We think that the 
greater part of these obscurities and apparent contradictions 
are relative, not absolute j they have their seat rather in man 
than in the Bible itself. He who reads little finds more 
difficulties than he who reads much; he who does not read 
with attention meets with greater confusion than he who 
reads attentively ; he who does not read in a prayerful spirit 
finds contradictions and even absurdities where everything 
is plain and evident to him who is devout j the unlearned 
and unstable find hard passages which are quite clear to the 
sober-minded and steady reader. The fact is, men do not 
read the Bible, or they do not read it with the proper dispo- 
sition ; hence they find it obscure. 



92 Roman Catholicism. 

Roman Catholics exaggerate the difficulties of the Bible in 
order to establish the authority of the Church. But, suppose 
that we could not understand the Bible without authoritative 
interpretation by the Church, would this interpretation be 
intelligible to all? Would it present no difficulties, or would 
it not become difficult in course of time 1 We think that the. 
interpretations of the Church are almost certain to be more 
obscure than the Bible itself. But let us consider more atten- 
tively this bulwark of infallibility, based on the pretended 
obscurity of the Bible. 

Boman Catholics agree with us that the Bible is a rule of 
faith. The question is : Is this rule of faith sufficiently clear 
of itself, or does it require explanation by a body of mei^ who 
claim to be endowed, from on high, with the divine attribute 
of infallibility ? Are we compelled to have recourse to the 
Church in order to understand, with sufficient clearness, how 
to be reconciled with God and save our souls 1 

It was not so with the Old Testament, in which is fore- 
shadowed the Christian Dispensation. There was no infal- 
lible Church to interpret the sacred books; for it is well 
known that the supreme council of the Jewish priesthood was 
not deemed infallible; yet men acquired a sufficiently clear 
knowledge of the sense of the Word of God, and by its light 
were enabled to walk with God. Can we suppose the New 
Testament to be less clear and perfect? Would God, in His 
Word, reveal His truth more dimly to Christians than to 
Jews? 

No; every reader of the Bible must be convinced that the 
Old Testament contains a larger number of obscure passages 
than the New; for the books of the former are, to a large 
extent, prophetical; whilst the writings of the latter are 
mostly historical, and contain doctrines founded on hi&tory 



The Churches Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 93 

and on fulfilled prophecy. And who does not know that it is 
more difficult to interpret prophecy than to understand his- 
tory? Why then should we Christians need an infallible 
interpreter, when the Jews were able to do without one? 

But we possess still greater advantages, not bestowed upon 
the Jews, by which we are enabled to acquire a sufficiently 
clear knowledge of revealed truths, without the interpreta- 
tion of the Church. Roman Catholics will agree with us that 
under the Old Law the Holy Ghost had not been as yet 
given, and His peculiar influence had not then commenced 
to pervade the Church, working in a special manner with the 
honest searcher after truth. The Jews, therefore, were thrown 
on the resources of their natural light in interpreting the 
Bible. How much more able, then, should Christians be to 
tinderstand God's Word, since they have the promise of the 
Spirit's assistance? Boman Catholics, instead of belittling 
God's written Word, and deterring men from opening the 
sacred volume, on account of its reputed obscurity, should be 
thankful for the privileges Christians enjoy as compared with 
Jews, and instead of bolstering up their system of hierarchi- 
cal infallibility to the disparagement of the Bible, they should 
implore the aid of the Divine Spirit, who is ever willing and 
ready to give them a clear understanding of the revealed 
truths of God so far as may be necessary for their salvation 
and well-being. 

Indeed, what need is there of an infallible interpreter? 
We are bound to admit that the sacred writers did not address 
themselves to men of eccentric and distorted intellect who 
would find or invent difficulties anywhere, or to men of a 
vain philosophy, against whom St. Paul warns Christians, 
but to men of sound common sense who will use theii' judg- 
ment in a normal way. We must suppose that God, in pro- 



94 Roman Catholicism. 

viding a revelation, did not intend to absolve man altogether 
from the duty of enquiring into truth, thus become a 
blind recipient of doctrines proposed for his belief by a body 
of men claiming infallibility. We clearly see that men of 
common sense — and they are generally in the majority — 
will, by the aid of God's Spirit, find it no impossible task to 
find in the Bible as much saving truth as is necessary for 
them. The sacred penmen wrote for these and for these 
alone. So long as sober common sense exists in the Church, 
the Bible will be understood without recourse being had to 
the interpretations of a hierarchy. 

Both the learned and unlearned possess this gift of God ; 
the Bible, therefore, suits the capacity of all classes of men. 
As true philosophy is nothing more than the development 
and science of common sense, even the most profound philos- 
opher will find in the Bible full satisfaction and repose for 
his intellect. The most simple men, devoid of profound 
human learning, such as the sacred writers were, address 
themselves, in the simplest style and the plainest terms, to 
simple-minded people. Who does not see that God acted 
thus that all might understand His revelation with sufficient 
clearness? There is a wise design in all the works of God. 
We believe this simplicity of style and language has its 
meaning, and that God, in making use of it, gave us to under- 
stand that men of common sense might clearly discern 
the truths He purposed to reveal for the enlightenment and 
welfare of mankind. Nay, this very simplicity of language 
is in itself a gracious and encouraging invitation, on God's 
part, to hungry and thirsting souls — and they only will 
profit by it — to come and read and reason together with Him 
and thus acquire possession of the truth, without the inter- 
ference of any body of men, however high theii^ ecclesiastical 
authority may be. 



The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible. 95 

We ask any impartial man, not blinded by the spirit of 
party, why did God inspire His messengers and move them 
to write the Bible? Was it that it should be understood by 
man or that it should be a sealed book? It would certainly 
be inconsistent with the wisdom of God to bestow a book 
upon man for his guidance, and at the same time to conceal 
its meaning. We cannot separate the book from its sense. 
If the book was given for man's instruction the sense must 
be clear to those who seek to be infracted by it. From the 
very fact, then, that God has given us the Bible, we conclude 
that it is intelligible to the sincere enquii-er after truth. 

In fact, God could adopt no method more simple and more 
truly enlightening in order to teach and perpetuate His 
revelation than to embody it in an intelligible book. And 
does not history prove that, wherever the Bible is read and 
studied with befitting earnestness, there true Christianity 
prevails, pure and intelligent ; and that, wherever the system 
of Church-infallibility holds sway, to its full extent, there is 
no enlightened and reasonable Christianity, but only error 
and superstition— not the reality of truth, but the dream of 
delusion. But we should expect quite the contrary if what 
Boman Catholics say about the obscurity of the Bible be 
true. Alas ! we fear that the claim to infallibility is merely 
a subterfuge to defend doctrines that are not to be found in 
Scripture, or are contrary to Scripture; and that the ob- 
scurity is not in the Bible itself, but in the men who assert 
the infallibility of the Church. In fact, this pretended power 
of infallible interpretation, instead of clearing away difficul- 
ties, tends to propagate errors and serves only as an easy 
pillow for careless members of the Church. 

No ; Christ's people do not need such an interpreter. The 
Bible was understood by its first readers, without the inter- 



96 Roman Catholicism, 

pretation of an infallible priesthood, why should it not be 
understood by the devout students who have lived in succeed- 
ing ages'? Are they less richly endowed with common sensed 
Are they less dear to God's heart 1 Or, has the understand- 
ing of the Scriptures become more difficult? We cannot 
allow any of these suppositions. True, our habits and cus- 
toms, the character of our times and countries, the idioms of 
our languages and other circumstances differ from those of 
the sacred writers and of their earliest readers, and this may 
at first sight, present some difficulties in the way of clearly 
understanding the Bible. But these difficulties are not in- 
surmountable and require no infallible interpreter; they can 
all be overcome by proper care and study. 

We do not deny that there are difficulties in the interpre- 
tation of Scripture; there are passages which have not as 
yet been fully understood and explained; but we have no 
need of admitting, on that account, the claims of the Church 
as an infallible interpreter; for she has proved no wiser than 
the rest of mankind in the work of elucidation. 

The truths of the Bible may be divided into two great 
classes — simple historical narratives of fact, and doctrine. 
No one will deny that the former can be easily understood 
by every attentive reader; we do not mean the nature of the 
facts, but their historical statement. Strictly speaking, we do 
not understand the internal nature of any fact, even in the 
natural order. We do not comprehend how a plant grows, but 
we know nevertheless that it does grow. In like manner, 
we do not understand how a miracle is wrought, but we 
know that it is wrought. To know the existence of facts is 
sufficient for our guidance, both in the natural and super- 
natural order. 

With regard to the doctrines contained in the Bible, they 



The ChurcUs Office as Interpreter of the Bible, 97 

may be subdivided into two classes — practical ones or moral 
precepts, and dogmatical ones or doctrines of faitb. The 
former may also be readily understood by men of sound prac- 
tical common sense; for it is not difficult to understand 
things of practical import, and the precepts of the Bible are 
couched in simple and intelligible words. 

As for the theoretical parts which contain dogmas of faith, 
those doctrines that are necessary for our salvation, and form 
the basis of our Christian life, on which, as it were, the whole 
of Christianity hinges, or in other words, the essentials and 
fundamentals are also easily understood by every sincere en- 
quirer. They are expressed in the clearest terms, occur al- 
most on every page of Holy Writ, are stated in a variety of 
ways, presented in different views and aspects, and illus- 
trated in parables taken from the ordinary occurrences of 
life. Being the cardinal points of revelation, and as such of 
the highest importance and interest to every man, the serious 
enquirer is anxious to know about them, and every one, 
even the most illiterate, has common sense enough to under- 
stand them. 

But there are also doctrines in the Bible which are not 
fully understood, and the time has not even yet arrived when 
the understanding of them seems to be required. It is not 
necessary that God^s revelation should be fully comprehended 
in its entirety, all at once, and by every believer. As in the 
book of nature there are phenomena not fully understood, and 
which therefore stimulate and excite a laudable spirit of ex- 
amination and research, so also' in the Bible there are passages 
the meaning of which will be made known at some future 
time ; although that is not necessary in our day for the sal- 
vation of the present generation. It will be necessary at some 
future time ; because there is nothing useless in God's works, 

7 



98 Roman Catholicism, 

especially in His supernatural revelation. When the proper 
time arrives, God in His all- wise providence will give the 
key to the true understanding of what remains obscure. Has 
that Church which claims infallibility in interpretation given 
an infallible explanation of all parts of Sacred Scripture ] 
No ; she does not even consider it necessary at present, and 
certainly could not do it ; or if she could, as she pretends, 
why does she put her candle under a bushel, and keep her 
talent for expounding Scripture infallibly thus long wrapped 
up in a napkin % Why does she not issue infallible commen- 
taries or expositions of the entire Bible % She cannot do it 
and is afraid of committing herself. The pretended gift of 
infallibility is only a cloak to conceal the nakedness of doc- 
trines not contained in Scripture — a subterfuge of obstinacy 
in error ; Jt is, in fact, a weapon employed against the Bible. 

He who is not satisfied with the Bible will also be dis- 
contented, if he be of a serious and reflecting cast of mind, 
with the doctrine of Church-infallibility. Every sound mind, 
under the guidance of God's Spirit, may be satisfied with the 
Bible and find therein those things which are necessary for 
his salvation, food and satisfaction for his mind, rest, peace 
and consolation for his heart, moral strength for his actions. 

It is only the men of system, — they who wish to see the 
whole body of revealed doctrine systematically and scientifi- 
cally arranged according to human method that find it diffi- 
cult to understand God's Word ; because they find it a hard, 
nay, impossible task to arrange the doctrines scattered by God 
over the different leaves of His written Book under the 
banner of their preconceived system. They have some 
favourite tenet, some peculiar point of view, some pet scheme, 
to which they wish to make everything yield, to which they 
endeavour to reduce all revealed truth, and by the light of 



The Church's Office as Interpreter of the Bible, 99 

whicli they interpret every text. They will certainly find it 
a difficult task to compress all the truths of the Bible into 
the narrow limits of a system conceived in the brain of man. 
They are like those philosophers who wish to confine all 
human knowledge within the limits of one favourite principle. 
As the disputes in philosophy arise from this spirit of sys- 
tematizing^ so also in religion. The book of nature and 
the book of supernatural revelation are two grand books, 
the contents of which we can never fully comprehend, and 
the depth of which we can never fully fathom in this life. 
But notwithstanding these limits of our understanding, under 
God's guidance we can gather from the book of nature as 
much as is sufficient for our temporal life and happiness ; and 
from the Word of God as much as amply suffices for our 
spiritual life and felicity. We should beware of any 
tendency to systematizing, but contrariwise, endeavour to keep 
our minds and hearts open to the truth in all its fulness and 
purity. The wise philosopher gathers facts from the book of 
nature wherever he can find them j he is not anxious to con- 
fine himself within the narrow limits of a theory, because he 
knows that every object in nature may be considered from 
difierent points of view, and that every aspect of it may 
form the basis of a beautiful set of truths. It is the same 
with the impartial religious enquirer. He, too, gathers truth 
from every leaf of Holy Writ j at each reading, new and 
beautiful avenues open to his mind, every one of which con- 
tains a series of bright and consoling truths, but he does not 
raise them into an exclusive system. It is sad to reflect that 
many of the difierent religious denominations have originated 
from the spirit of system, from a one-sided and narrow con- 
sideration of God's Word. Having established a 'priori^ that 
is, before attentively reading all parts of God's revelation and 



100 Roman Catholicism. 

comparing Scripture with Scripture, some religious principle, 
they then proceed to accommodate the interpretation of the 
Bible to it. We look upon the Roman Catholic Church as 
the greatest of these systems. She enjoys superiority in point 
of antiquity, numbers, and external influence; she pretends to 
interpret and solve all the difficulties of the Bible and ofiers to 
her adherents the soft and easy couch of Church-infallibility 
whereon they may peacefully repose and lull their thoughts 
into careless security. Hence those who are in her bosom 
find it difficult to get out, and those who wish to reduce the 
truths of the Bible to a system feel inclined to enter her 
fold. The Bible is to them a dead letter ; some of their 
theologians have even gone so far as to call it a certain 
amount of paper, ink and binding. Why % Because it does 
not set forth their system ; nay, they do not see any system 
in it at all. 

The Bible a dead letter ! No ! To call it a certain amount 
of paper, ink and binding is blasphemy. The Bible is the 
Word of God and as such it is the life ; Christ says that man 
liveth by it. We should bear in mind that there is no dif- 
ference between the spoken and the written Word. Now, 
the words which God speaks are not dead sounds ; they are 
living words, words uttered for our eternal salvation, — words 
of everlasting life. The Word of God, whether written or 
spoken, has innate and inherent power. We believe that 
when it enters the souls of men, God enters into them ; for 
where the Word of God is there is God also ; the Holy Spirit 
takes up His abode there and surrounds the Word of God and 
the intellect of man with a supernatural light which pro- 
duces faith. As natural objects, because they are created 
after their likeness in God's intellect, present internal evi- 
dence of their origin whe;i they appear to our intellect which 



The Church's Office as Interpreter of tlie Bible. 101 

is enabled to perceive them, because it also participates in the 
light of God's Mind after whose likeness it was created ; so in 
like manner and in a far greater measure, the greatest work 
of God — His holy Word — bears in itself an internal light and 
the Holy Ghost prepares our minds to apprehend it. 

But although such be the case, we are nevertheless bound 
to use all our endeavours to acquire a true interpretation of 
the Bible. None should stand alone in this important work. 
Individual efforts, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, 
will certainly be blessed; but they will not be complete. 
God has given His Word to men — thinking, enquiring and 
patient men, and he has promised to the honest seeker the 
assistance of His Spirit. Is it not evident that all this ex- 
cludes the fiction of Church-infallibility in Biblical interpre- 
tation % 



LECTUEE VII. 

REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE 
CHURCH S OFFICE AS JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES. 

AS we have already seen, Roman Catholics contend that 
the gift of infallibility is a necessity arising from the dif- 
ferent offices of the Church. We have reviewed, in the preced- 
ing lectures, the arguments drawn from her offices of witness, 
teacher, and shepherd. It now remains for us to consider the 
proofs derived from her office as judge in controversies of 
faith. 

Both from the nature of the Church as a society and from 
Scripture they conclude that the Church holds the office of 
judge. As a society she must possess a tribunal capable of 
settling disputes among her members, and as regards Scrip- 
ture proofs they contend that the power of binding and 
loosing conferred on the Apostles and their successors in- 
cludes authority to decide in controversies of faith. And as 
her judgment in matters of faith and morals is final here on 
earth, and demands therefore the implicit confidence of all 
her members, she must necessarily be endowed with infalli- 
bility ; otherwise men's minds would remain unsettled; faith 
would lose its hold; and the gates of hell would prevail 
against the Church. 

We answer that no such office of judging infallibly in all 
doctrinal disputes is explicitly set forth in Scripture, and we 
do not see how the power of binding and loosing include it. 



The Church's Office in Controversies, 103 

There is in it nothing more than the necessary authority which 
the Church received from Christ to govern herself and to 
settle all matters of discipline. Beyond this, we fail to 
see anything tangible. Christ Himself, who knew both 
what was in man, as also the powers He conferred on His 
Church, simply warned His disciples against false prophets 
coming in sheep's clothing, but who inwardly were ravening 
wolves. And St. Paul says, " There must be heresies among 
you, that they which are approved may be made manifest 
among you." (i. Cor., xi. 19.) And the other Apostles 
speak in a similar strain. In all these warnings they nowhere 
point to an infallible tribunal by which these heresies may 
be rebuked and crushed. But they rather appeal to the 
judgment of the individual. Christ saith, " Why of your- 
selves judge ye not what is right 1" (Luke xii., 57.) St. 
Paul says, " He that is spiritual judgeth all things." (i. Cor. 
ii., 15.) " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith." 
(ii. Cor. xiii., 5.) " Prove all things ; hold fast that which 
is good." (i. Thes. v., 21.) " Believe not every spirit, but 
try the spirits whether they be of God." (i. John iv., 11.) 
Indeed, no religious controversy can be said to be settled 
until the respective parties are individually convinced in their 
own minds. The Church might issue her decrees ; but they 
would have no effect unless this individual conviction were 
first brought about. It seems clear, then, that individual dis- 
cernment of the truth is the only means by which the mind 
can be persuaded, and controversies of faith finally settled. 
The Church is the kingdom of Christ — the kingdom of the 
truth, and every one " that is of the truth heareth His voice,** 
and belongs to that kingdom. (John xviii., 37.) Where the 
truth is, there is the Church. Now we cannot find any other 
depository of the truth within the Church but the Bible. In 



104 Roman Catholicism, 

all controversies of faith, therefore, all that the Church can 
do is to direct the parties concerned to this standard, and 
those that ''are of the truth^^ and have their minds open to 
conviction will perceive it, and for them the controversy- 
is settled; and as to those who fail or refuse to be convinced, 
we have to lament and regret with St. Paul, " that there 
must be heresies, that they which are approved may be made 
manifest." 

The advocates of Church-infallibility, in order to uphold 
their views and maintain their standpoint, exaggerate these 
doctrinal difficulties and controversies of faith. By so doing 
they hope to set forth more forcibly the necessity of an infal- 
lible judge, and compel men distracted by doubts and diffi- 
culties to come within the precincts of the tribunal they have 
constituted. 

Let us briefly consider the nature of these controversies in 
order to estimate their value and the power of their real and 
supposed mischief. We may divide them into three classes. 

In the first place, there have always been differences of 
opinion in regard to disciplinary points. We must infer 
that Christ and His Apostles left the discipline of the Church 
more or less to the free organization of the Christian people, 
since nowhere in the New Testament do we find a code of dis- 
ciplinary rules such as was contained in the Old Law. Cer- 
tain general principles are laid down, but their application is 
left to the free agency of Christian communities. If we 
appeal to history we find that even in apostolic times such 
differences were permitted among the various nationalities. 
The Oriental liturgies which were certainly composed at an 
early period, prove the truth of this fact. Liberty as to 
disciplinary arrangements is one of the Christian privi- 
leges of which the Apostles speak when they rejoice that 



The ChurcKs Office in Controversies, 105 

they are delivered from the bondage of the Old Law. And we 
think that differences in discipline are in a manner necessary 
in order that members, according to their different disposi- 
tions, may find a place in the Church in which they may feel 
themselves spiritually free to display fully their activity and 
energy. Koman Catholics will admit that the settlement 
of controversies as regards discipline does not require an 
infallible judge. It is only requisite to follow the principle 
laid down by St. Paul, "to do everything decently and in 
order." 

We regret, indeed, that disciplinary differences should 
have been allowed to destroy friendly intercourse and 
Christian intercommunion between reformed Churches. As 
they are for the most part agreed on points of faith, why 
should controversies about discipline divide them % Why 
allow Christian liberty to destroy the bond of union % Could 
not both exist together % But these which are our misfor- 
tunes, should not delude Koman Catholics into thinking 
that they are right. They also have their controversies 
about discipline, and find it difficult, sometimes impracticable, 
to settle them. Those among them who know their Church 
thoroughly will confess that the pope finds it an exceedingly 
trying task, owing to mere disciplinary differences, to retain 
the different Eastern Churches that have re-united them- 
selves to the See of E-ome ; and we know of instances where 
a complete disruption has taken place. Those who are 
behind the scenes are aware of the constant temporizing 
forced upon the Roman curia in order to allay disputes on 
disciplinary points. 

The second class of controversies in the Christian 
Churches regards doctrinal points that may be held either 
one way or the other, without injury to faith and charity. 



106 Roman Catholicism. 

There is often more than one interpretation admissible of 
one and the same text or doctrine ; and whatever interpre- 
tation may be adopted, it will tend to one and the same end. 
As long as the facts of revelation are admitted, men may 
differ in the manner of explaining them. These differences 
arise mostly from the different points of view from which 
God's revealed truths are considered. Truth is not one-sided, 
but may be considered in different ways. It sheds its light 
not only in one direction, but all around ; from whatever side 
you view it, it remains always instrincally and essentially 
the same, but assumes different aspects in its manifestation 
to us. As the crystal exposed to the rays of the sun remains 
in itself the same, yet presents to our view different colours 
as we look at it in different aspects, so God's revealed 
truths may be viewed, by different persons, from different 
points ; and although their judgments differ, we cannot say 
that any of them are wrong. We think that probably all are 
right, and that if their views were united and reconciled, we 
should be in possession of the entire truth. Every one will 
admit that controversies of this nature do not require an in- 
fallible judge to determine them. Our rule here should be 
scrupulously to avoid condemning any one too rashly who 
may differ from us in his views of revealed truth. 

To be permitted to regard doctrines from different stand- 
points is what we call liberty of conscience. It is not, as 
Koman Catholics object against us, a license to believe 
whatsoever you wish, but the right use of our reasoning 
powers in viewing the same text, doctrine, or fact from every 
point of view. We believe that God, by His revelation, 
did not intend to destroy our natural powers, or to fetter 
their use, but to elevate them to a higher and nobler 
standard. He must have granted us, therefore, liberty of 



The Church's Office in Controversies. 107 

conscience. It would be a great mistake to suppose that by 
using this liberty, in a right way, revealed truths will be dis- 
torted or destroyed ; on the contrary, they are, by the use of 
this gift, more firmly established in the hearts of men, not 
only in one, but in manifold aspects. Although, in its 
general and main features, the nature of the human intel- 
lect is the same in all men, still we must admit individual 
differences ; and God, in His government of mankind, em- 
ploys these individual characteristics when He descends with 
His truth into the human mind. As regards the perception 
of revealed truths, we should consider man not merely in the 
abstract, but as he really is, a thinking and inquisitive being, 
searching after the truth in his own way. We believe that God, 
as a rule, manifests His truth only to the sincere enquirer ; 
and this enquiry includes calm discussion or controversy. 
This stirs the stagnant pools, purifies the spiritual at- 
mosphere, and keeps the soul of man in a healthful condition. 
There is, indeed, a third class of controversies involving 
such doubts as attack and tend to destroy the precious gift 
and deposit of faith. How are they to be settled % We 
answer, in the first place, that such controversies are trials of 
our faith. God, in His inscrutable providence, permits them, 
in order to try His people. But how are they to be made 
aware of the danger? How may they determine who is 
right and who is wrong % Who has the right and authority to 
determine these controversies, and how may they be effectually 
settled % We reply that the danger will be perceived and the 
enemy be detected and unmasked by those who " are of the 
truth " and possess God's Spirit. Those, on the contrary, who 
care not for the truth and do not possess His blessed Spirit, will 
surely be ensnared and fall. Outwardly, the enemy will 
sometimes appear to have conquered, so much so that even 



108 Roman CatholicisM. 

the elect will be sorely tried and tempted. Christ Himself 
has foretold this and warned us of the danger. 

History teaches that, when the trial is great, God has raised 
up champions of Heaven to fan the dormant embers of 
faith, to light the torch of truth, and to kindle the fire of 
divine love in the hearts of men. When the people of Israel 
were in danger of falling into idolatry, God sent inspired pro- 
phets to keep them steadfast in the worship of the true God, 
and in the hope of a coming Redeemer. They were inspired, 
for they had to arouse the belief in a future fact. The 
champions of Christianity have no -need of this gift, as they 
have to speak oitlnQpast, and recall the minds of men to a be- 
lief in great historical facts which stand forth for the inspection 
of all, in their full significance and value — the facts recorded 
in the Bible, which is acknowledged by all Christendom to be 
the inspired Volume of God. So long as the world stands, 
that divine book will be an efiective rule of faith; and 
whenever enemies arise against God's truth, they may and 
will be refuted by that authoritative volume. Should they 
attack the Bible itself, they will never prevail, for " heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but God's Word shall not pass 
away." All that t!ie champions of Christianity whom God 
raises up in times of trial require to do is to turn the minds of 
Christians from the the delusive teachings of the enemy to 
the bright facts of God's revelation contained in the Bible, 
and the facts themselves, by their innate light, will bring 
conviction and peace to men that "are of the truth " and 
have their minds open to conviction. 

When vain philosophers endeavour to disturb the world 
by their false principles and teachings in natural and social 
science, who is to be the judge oi controversy between them 
and mankind ? None other than sound common sense, under 



The ChurcKs Office in Controversies. 109 

the direction of an all- wise Providence. In the same manner, 
when bad and deluded men, instigated by Satan, teach false 
and heretical doctrines, all disputes in matters of faith 
are settled by the sound religious common sense of Chris- 
tians, the faith implanted in their hearts, and the guidance 
of the Holy Ghost attracting the well-disposed and inducing 
them to lean on the Bible and behold therein the true teach- 
ings of God. 

If controversies arise about the meaning of the Bible, they 
may also arise, as they have often done before, concerning the 
definitions and decrees of the Church. In fact fewer contro- 
versies have occurred about the sense of the Bible than in re- 
gard to the definitions of the Roman Church. It is her 
policy, so as not to commit herself, to couch them in the 
most general terms. Hence, in order to understand them 
and settle the disputes springing out of them, another infal- 
lible judge of controversies would have to be appointed, and 
so on usque ad infinitum. 

Homan Catholics reply that such would be the case if these 
definitions were only a dead letter like the Bible. They tell 
us that they are explained by the living voice of the Church, 
and can therefore be easily understood by all. 

We ask, how does this living voice of the Church, that is, 
of the united episcopate, reach the individual members'? Is 
it not by the voice of pastors who themselves, in their indi- 
vidual capacity, are fallible ? From the mouths of fallible 
men, therefore, they must obtain the infallible interpretation 
of the decrees of the Church. We, on the contrary, maintain 
that by sound common sense, with the assistance of God's 
Spirit, we obtain the true meaning of the Bible so far as 
is necessary for our salvation. And the Bible was given us 
as a guide to Heaven, and for that purpose alone. Our posi- 



110 Roman Catholicism, 

tion is simple and the only one that is tenable, whilst that of 
Roman Catholics is full of insurmountable difficulties. 

They admit that the pastors by whom the people are 
instructed are individually fallible, but they contend that 
they are infallible when their explanation agrees with that of 
the united episcopate. 

We do not see how that can make them infallible. The 
most that can be said is that they teach the truth when 
that which the episcopal body teaches is true. But there 
is a great difference between being infallible and teaching 
the truth. The former term is more comprehensive than the 
latter, and demands that the pastors, besides teaching the 
truth, should be so utterly incapable of error, that, when 
they speak, the hearers, without enquiring into the proofs of 
the doctrines set forth by them, must believe what they teach 
to be true, because they teach it. 

Moreover, how can they discover whether the pastor teaches 
the doctrines of the Church, unless they compare his teach- 
ings with the definitions and decrees of the Church, or with 
the living voice of the dispersed episcopate — ^the ecclesia dis- 
persa ? In the former case, they would fall into what they 
call the great Protestant error, of making the dead letter the 
judge of controversies ; and in the latter case, they would 
have to enquire what the bishops all over the world teach 
concerning the point in controversy, which, besides being 
practically impossible, could not produce in their minds an 
in controvertible faith. After all, then, the living voice of 
the Church, in matters of controversy, is but an empty sound 
— vox et prceterea nihil, 

" The Scripture is the rule, the only rule for Christians 
whereby to judge controversies. Every man is to judge for 
himself with the judgment of discretion, and to choose either 



The Church's Office in Controversies, 111 

his religion first, and then his Church, as we say ; or, as 
Eoman Catholics say, his Church first and then his religion. 
But by the consent of both sides, every man is to judge and 
choose ; and the rule whereby he is to guide his choice, if he 
be not as yet a Christian, but a natural man, is reason ; if he 
be already a Christian, Scripture ; which we say is the rule 
to judge controversies by, which may arise among Christians 
who admit Scripture to be the Word of God. But that 
there is any man or any company of men appointed to be 
judge for all men, that we deny ; and that we believe Boman 
Catholics can never prove. The Bible has the properties of 
a rule; it is fit to direct any one that will make the best use 
of it, to that end for which it was ordained : and that is as 
much as we need desire. For, as if I were to go on a jour- 
ney and had a guide who could not err, I needed not to know 
my way ; so, on the other side, if I know my way, or have 
a plain rule to know it by, I shall need no guide. The 
Scripture in things necessary is plain and perfect ; and men 
are obliged, under pain of damnation, to seek the true sense 
of it and not to wrest it to their preconceived fancies. Such 
a rule, therefore, to sincere and serious men cannot but be 
very fit to end all controversies that are necessary to be 
ended. For others that are not so, they will end when the 
world ends, and that is time enough." (Chillingworth.) 

When we speak of Scripture as the judge of controversies? 
we must not separate from it the assistance of the Holy Ghost. 
The Bible is His work from begianing to end. He inspired 
and dictated it for the express purpose that men might come 
to the knowledge of the truth. Do not think that His en- 
lightening work was at an end after He had dictated the last 
sentence of the Bible, for He must yet secure the end and pur- 
pose for which He gave us the inspired book. We believe, 



112 Roman Catholicism. 

therefore, that He gives men the desire and will to enquire 
and seek after truth in its pages; that He assists the sincere en- 
quirer with His enlightening grace; and finally leads him into 
all truth. Although, sometimes, the religious horizon may- 
appear darkened by the clouds of fierce controversy, the Holy 
Ghost, in His own good time, will dispel them all, and eternal 
truth will again shine out in all its brightness. 

By divine right, then, heresies are condemned in God's 
Word. The infallible tribunal composed of a company of 
men could not more efiectually settle controversies of faith ; 
but, on the contrary, would afford an opening for establish- 
ing, in place of Christ's kingdom, a kingdom of this world. 
It would offer a pretext for settling disputes not by mere de- 
finitions only, but by inquisitions and bloody persecutions, 
as the history of the Roman Catholic and other corrupt 
Christian bodies clearly shows. The claimants to infalli- 
bility were not content with anathemas, but clamoured for 
the extirpation of the heretics; and it is a remarkable fact that 
no Church ever claimed infallibility until she had obtained 
political power and influence to persecute and destroy the 
heretic. 

We are certain that God's Word and His Spirit are de 
jure the judge of controversies. We are equally certain that de 
facto heresies will always exist, for Christ Himself foretold 
it. There exists no tribunal which can de facto — effectually 
— settle controversies of faith, that is, silence heretics and 
sweep heresies from the face of the earth. The Church of 
Rome has tried it ; but she has never succeeded. The complete 
and final destruction of error must be left to God alone. 
Those who '^ are of the truth," will hear Christ's voice and 
belong to His kingdom of truth ; those who are not of the 



The Church's Office in Controversies, 113 

truth will persist in their error. There will be tares among 
the wheat, and Christ alone can effectually separate the one 
from the other and present to His Father a glorious Church, 
without wrinkle or spot 



8 



LECTUEE VIII. 

INFALLIBILITY NOT NECESSARY FOR TEE UNITY OF 

THE CHURGH. 

THE rule of faith ought to be the focus on which all the 
light of the Church concentrates, the source from which 
all her perfections emanate, the principle that gives vitality 
to all her offices, and the bond of union that unites her mem- 
bers in faith and charity. We shall consider to-day the 
latter of these properties. 

Koman Catholics points with the finger of scorn at the 
disunited and distracted state of Protestantism. Behold, 
they exultingly exclaim, to what interminable divisions the 
Bible, interpreted by the light of private judgment alone, 
has led ! They glory in the aspect of compact unity which 
their Church presents to the world ; and although they may 
have their doubts and misgivings on many points, yet they 
see nothing outside her pale which, in their sense, can be 
called unity, and therefore make up their minds to live and 
die Roman Catholics. They are, moreover, confirmed in 
their adherence, when they see weary and dissatisfied mem- 
bers of Protestant Churches seeking refuge from distraction 
in E-oman Catholic unity. Now, as this unity is brought 
about by the doctrine of Church-infallibility, they conclude 
that she must be endowed with this gift from on high. 

We, too, teach that the Church of Christ must possess 
unity, and that this unity is not a mere union or voluntary 



Infallibility and Church-Unity. 115 

association which may be entered into or abandoned at one's 
will and pleasure, but, like the unity of the human body, 
results from the very organization of the Church as the 
mystical body of Christ. It is the organic unity of a society, 
whicydoes not depend on the will of man, but is established 
by Christ Himself and compacted together by the Holy Spirit. 
It is not anything added from without, but it is the result of 
the inner life of the Church itself. Unity manifests itself 
in association ; but association is not always the sign of 
organic unity. 

We differ, therefore, from the Roman Catholics in regard 
to the nature of this unity of the Church. In the Roman 
system it consists in centralization : in the strict subjection 
of the laity to the clergy, of the priests to the bishops and of 
all to the pope. History informs us that this centralization 
was perfected by degrees, until at last all unity, together 
with the gift of infallibility, became centered in the pope. 
Now, such a centralization, however specious it may appear, 
at first sight, is too complicated and inconvenient, when we 
consider that it has to keep together a society dispersed over 
the whole world. To throw the whole burden of spiritual 
unification on the shoulders of a company of men, or of one 
man, and he, too, an old man whose energy is gone and 
whose mental discernment and penetration must naturally 
be supposed to be on the wane, seems to be temptiug God 
and compelling Him to perform a perpetual miracle, and we 
do not find that the pope has the promise of such a miracle, 
nor, indeed, does he show any sign thereof. 

History teaches that centralization in vast secular 
empires inevitably tends to become the germ of weakness and 
decay, and we do not see any reason that would justify us in 
making an exception in favour of ecclesiastical governments. 



116 Roman Catholicism. 

Hence, may not the coping stone of papal infallibility, that 
was placed on the Koman edifice in the Vatican "(jouncil, be 
too heavy for its strength and prove the beginning of its 
final downfall ? May not Rome, by aiming at too much, 
lose all ] Formerly Roman Catholics might with some pride 
have gloried in the unity of their Church, as the grand rule 
of catholicity : quod semper, uhique et ah omnibus gave it, to 
a certain degree, a reasonable and spiritual nature ; but have 
they cause to do so still % Are there not reasons for looking 
into the future with gloomy foreboding 1 

The Roman Catholic mind seems to be so thoroughly 
imbued with the mediaeval idea that the Church is a mon- 
archy, that it can entertain no other conception of unity than 
that of a monarchical one. Now, that the Church is capable 
of such a union is not the question, nor do we assert that it 
is altogether against the genius of Christianity that Christians 
should unite under one ecclesiastical government where and 
when such a union would be expedient and productive of 
good. We do not even dispute that the Church, under the 
Roman empire, did approximate closely to such a unity. 

But we contend that a unity of that kind would be merely 
of ecclesiastical appointment. We cannot allow that it is 
necessary or was ever intended by the Divine Master. We 
believe that all things necessary to the constitution of the 
Church are undoubtedly mentioned in Scripture. Now, the 
sacred writers, when they speak of the unity of the Church, 
never state that it should be preserved by a general govern- 
ment endowed with infallibility. We find, on the contrary, 
that the Apostles in founding Churches disregarded such a 
f ul© of unity. If they had established such a central power, 
thej would haT© m^stioijad the person or persons who were 
Ifev^ted with m impoftaa^ aa auiJiority^ kid dowa rules for 



Infallibility and Church-Unity. 117 

its right giiidance and safeguards against its possible abuse. 
They would have exhorted their converts to appeal to it 
whenever necessary. Schisms and heresies would have been 
removed by it. They themselves would have taught by 
their own example how to treat and reverence such a supreme 
authority. But what do we find % Each Church separately 
ordering its own aflairs in its own way and without reference 
to others. Any one reading the writings of St. Paul to par- 
ticular Churches must be convinced that each Church was 
endowed with perfect liberty to manage its own afiairs, settle 
its own disputes and govern its own members. We find, 
indeed, that they had intercommunion one with another; 
relieved each other in their poverty and distress, assisted 
each other in settling controversies and removing heresies, 
but nowhere do we find a general government in existence 
such as Roman Catholics assert to be essential to the unity 
of the Church. 

In fact, how could it have been in accordance with the 
nature and genius of Christianity which, as our Saviour 
affirms, is a kingdom not of this world? An ecclesiastical 
prince, with a general government, would soon degenerate 
into a temporal prince surrounded by all the worldly pomp 
of sovereignty, using all kinds of worldly means and doubt- 
ful political intrigues to support his dignity. And has not 
all this come to pass with the Church of Romel Has she not 
been the great political Church of the world ever since she 
put forth her claim to infallibility ? What other Church has 
been so constantly embroiled in political intrigues'? What 
other Church meddles so much in politics, in order to control 
and subordinate the State 1 Such being the nature of this 
centre of unity, must we not conclude that the unity result- 
ing therefrom is merely a political unity? 



118 Ro7nan Catholicism. 

We believe not only that Christ never intended to have 
the members of His Church bound together in the kind of 
unity Koman Catholics advoca.te, but we feel certain that it 
must always be injurious to the Church, as history amply 
proves. Indeed, to what advantage could such a connection 
of Churches, cemented by centralization, tend in promot- 
ing the great design of Christianity, which is to bring man 
to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, to 
save their souls, to sanctify them, to implant in their hearts 
the love of God and of their fellow men — in a word, to make 
them good Christians'? All these ends may be obtained 
without combining men into such a union. 

Whatever Roman Catholics 'may say to the contrary, it is 
evident that the unity which they predicate of the Church 
of Christ comes from without, not from within; it results 
in the blind obedience of the members to the authority of 
men claiming infallibility, and from a rigorous administra- 
tion of discipline. The unity which we want must be 
organic, that is, 'proceeding from the inner life of the Church 
and manifesting itself in compassing those ends for which 
Christianity was established. We want nothing more or 
less than that unity which is plainly set forth in Scripture. 

The subject is highly interesting; but as time compels me 
to be brief, I can merely touch upon the principal points. I 
refer you for a fuller consideration of the subject to Dr. 
Barrow's excellent '^Discourse on the Unity of the Church,^^ 

What then does Scripture teach in this regard ? In the 
first place, that the Church is one by consent of faith in the 
truths which God has revealed. The Church is the kingdom 
of the truth, and those that ^^are of the truth" will be one 
in faith. They may have different explanations of facts, but 
i^n regard to the facts themselves they will have one and the 



Infallibility and Church-Unity, 119 

same faith. We are next taught by Scripture that all 
Christians are united by the bonds of mutual charity and 
good will. "Hereby," says Christ, "shall all men know 
that ye are my disciples if ye love one another." We find, 
again, that all Christians have one and the same spiritual 
relationship, they are the sons of God and brethren of Christ. 
That is the unity of Christian brotherhood. They are mem- 
bers of Christ — subjects of that spiritual kingdom whereof 
Christ is the Head. We are further informed that Christians 
are linked together in peaceable concord, communicating in 
works of piety and devotion, defending and promoting the 
common interests of their profession; that they are united 
by the same sacraments j that by baptism they profess their 
faith in a common salvation and are admitted into one and 
the same Church ; and that in the Lord's Supper they ap- 
proach the same sacred table as brethren professing their 
faith in Christ as the common food of their souls, the Bread 
of Life that came down from heaven. They are exhorted to 
assist one another in the common defence of the truth when 
assailed, in the propagation of the Gospel and the enlarge- 
ment of the Church, We are further taught that Christians 
should pray and converse together for edification and advice ; 
and as the clergy are the leaders of the people, we find them 
foremost in all these offices of union and mutual intercourse 
between the difierent members and branches of the Church. 
The essential rules of discipline laid down in the Bible are 
few and simple, and it is very easy for Christians to be 
united in them. 

Such are the principal features of the unity which Scrip- 
ture sets forth as an essential characteristic of the Church 
of Christ. How different from the Boman system ! 

Is it not evident that the unity of the Church, which has 



120 Roman Catholicism, 

to comprise all nations and kindreds of the earth, men of the 
most diverse temperament and dispositions, habits and cus- 
toms, must not be hamj^ied by too many conditions? It 
must be eminently catholic, that is, as universal as the idea 
of man and adaptable to every human individual. As man- 
kind is one^ notwithstanding the great variety of the human 
species ; so also the Church of Christ must be 072e, for she is 
intended to embrace all the species. And as the unity of 
mankind is natural and independent of man, in like manner 
the unity of the Church proceeds from the same supreme 
Author, and is independent of any maxims of unification man 
may devise. The God and Father of mankind is also the 
God and Father of the Church. In reality, then, the Church 
and mankind are not two distinct societies. The truths God 
has revealed and the works He has wrought are intended for 
the benefit of all mankind ; and whosoever perceives and em- 
braces them by faith, belongs consciously to the Church. 
The truth is the chief object of God's loving concern for man- 
kind, not this or that particular religious association. The 
truth alone has the power of uniting men together in a 
society that does not depend on their wdll or pleasure ; hence 
those that '' are of the truth hear Christ's voice f they are^ 
those " that should be saved and are added to the Church." 
In reality, then, as the truth is intended for the whole race of , 
Adam, all mankind should be God's Church ; but as all men 
do not perceive the truth, or are unwilling to embrace it, 
only the holders and adherents of it are said to form the 
Church of Christ. Hence we may easily perceive that the 
Church is not an imperium in imperio — a kingdom within a 
kingdom, a society within the great human society — but a 
pa/rt of the kingdom, a part of the Church of mankind, but 
that part, indeed, which possesses the truth intended for all, 



Infallibility and Church-Unity, 121 

obeys the laws and promotes the true interests of the country 
and the world. As the class of good citizens do not form an 
independent and separate kingdom within the kingdom, but 
only constitute the better portion that may say to the 
rest : We are citizens like you, but we wish that you 
were such as we are and would see as we see the 
true interests of the nation : So, in like manner, 
the members of Christ's Church may say to the rest of 
the human family. We, like you, belong to the great 
Church of mankind \ you do not see this fact, but we do, 
and we desire you to see and acknowledge it also ; we per- 
ceive many truths revealed by God for your and our benefit ; 
you do not perceive them. We wish you could ; we see that 
God has done many things in your and our behalf : you do 
not see it. We wish you would acknowledge this likewise; in 
a word, we desire that you would see and act as we do \ then 
all mankind would be the Church of God indeed. 

The truth, then, revealed by God through Jesus Christ, is 
the bond of unity in the Church, and as this truth is no- 
where deposited but in the Bible, we must conclude that 
this sacred volume is the source and centre of all Christian 
unity. ^ '" We know that the advocates of Church-infallibility 
think themselves such necessary instruments for all good 
purposes, that nothing can well be done unless they do it : 
that no unity or constancy in religion can be maintained, but 
inevitably Christendom must fall to ruin and confusion, un- 
less they support it. But we are certain that Christ upon 
His ascension gave us His Apostles for all these excellent 
purposes, by their preaching while they lived, and by their 
writings for ever." (Chillingworth.) 

We see no other means of unity but the Bible. Yet 
Roman Catholics sneeringly bid us look at our divisions and, 



122 Roman Catholicism. 

tell them what unity the Bible has given us. Nay, some of 
our Protestant brethren feel discouraged, and in their per- 
plexity know not whither to turn. 

Methinks, that neither E-oman Catholics nor alarmed Pro- 
testants understand the true nature of unity. They imagine 
that some Church of one denomination or one communion 
must be always, to the peremptory exclusion of all other 
communions, the whole Church of Christ. They do not re- 
flect that unity does not excfude variety, but includes it, in 
beautiful harmony. As variety in unity constitutes the 
beauty of nature, so in the Church of Christ, there is a beau- 
tiful variety in a harmonious unity. 

Let them look at the first ages of Christianity, before 
Rome held sway over the greater part of the Church. What 
unity do we find in those times % Surely not that which we 
behold in the Roman Catholic Church, for there was no general 
government uniting them all. But in one and the same 
Church of Christ we find different associations called 
Churches, not indeed subject one to another, yet cherishing 
the same Bible, professing the same faith, united in love and 
charity, using the same ordinances, assisting each other in 
settling controversies, composing schisms and removing here- 
sies by mutual counsel in conferences and synods ; for they 
had intercommunion with each other in all things pertaining 
to the Christian religion. Still they differed in many things ; 
they had not the same- form of worship, and the only rule 
they appear to have held in common was " to do everything 
decently and in order." There was not the same discipline 
in all Churches ; they were greatly governed by circumstan- 
ces in those changeful times of the decay and fall of the Boman 
empire and invasion by northern barbarians. Yet who 
will affirm that there was no unity in those primitivd 



Infallibility and Church-Unity 123 

times of Christianity, albeit one widely differing from tlie 
Roman ideal ? 

Now let us come to the existing divisions of Protestantism. 
Have we really so much reason to be alarmed and dissatis- 
fied as some of our discouraged ones would make us believe. 
We must bear in mind that the Church of Rome had com- 
pletely destroyed the primitive liberty in unity ; Our re- 
formers had not only to restore this liberty, but in many 
cases to recall even the very idea of it, so completely had it 
been obliterated by the habit of blind obedience to papal 
government. Ought we not to be thankful that this blessed 
liberty in unity has been restored to us, after many painful 
struggles? It could hardly be expected that this liberty would 
be rightly understood and appreciated all at once ; for such 
mighty reformations require several generations before they 
come to full maturity. The old leaven of popery continued 
to work in the Protestant masses, for a considerable time. 
Modern Church-history informs us that, while with many 
this liberty degenerated into licence, the iron heel of re- 
pression was put on it by others. Thus, instead of one 
papacy, we had virtually several Protestant popedoms ; and 
while in other cases men were allowed to wander from sect 
to sect, they were often denied reasonable liberty within the 
pale of one and the same sect. In short, not having the 
sagacity of experience possessed by the Church of Pome, 
many blundered worse than that Church had ever done, ex- 
cept in its early tentative centuries. But let us forget the 
past and look at our present state. 

We have the blessing of religious liberty, but have we 
unity % Much more than many of us will allow. With the 
exception of a small fraction, whom we do not consider as 
belonging to us, all our Churches are evangelical^ believing 



124 Roman Catholicism. 

in Christ the Son of God. The Bible is our common mle of 
faith. We all contribute of our means to have it printed 
and circulated — we all stand together on the common 
platform of the Bible Society. All our denominations have 
the same faith ; we may lawfully differ in the exposition of 
revealed truth, but we all believe in the same way of sal- 
vation. Here again the Tract Society is a common platform 
on which we meet together. We are united in Christian works 
of charity and benevolence. We admit each other to the 
same sacraments, and preach the same Gospel. And to what 
do our differences amount % To slight variations of view on 
Church-government and the manner of conducting public 
worship. But we are not guilty of these differences; we 
have not made them — we have inherited them, and as we 
are influenced by education and circumstances, we have ac- 
cepted them. We are justified in thinking that we are 
really more at one than would externally appear. What 
does that Protestant Alliance mean, whose annual meetings 
are held with Christian joy and enthusiasm; we think it is 
the manifestation of an organic Christian unity brought 
about by the Spirit of God. True, every association is not 
organic, but organic unity, arising from within, manifests 
itself in association ; and may not the Protestant Alliance 
be the result of such inner unity % May it not proclaim to 
the world that we are united ; I do not mean that the dif- 
ferent denominations as such, that is as organized bodies, are 
at one with each other, for these are still, unfortunately, 
bigoted and exclusive, but that a vast number of Christians 
within these bodies, and in spite of them, are united in faith 
and charity, and desire to manifest this their inner union by 
an outward alliance. And is not this Alliance a remarkable 
proof of the strong aspiration of Christians for an outward 



Infallibility and Churck-Unity. 125 

unity untrammeled by the jarring influences of a bigoted and 
narrow-minded denominationalism ? We think the laity of 
our evangelical Churches are more united in the ever one and 
the same Church of Christ than the clergy ; we are sorry to 
admit that the latter hold more or less aloof from mutual 
intercourse and Christian intercommunion. Is there no way 
of burying old prejudices and theological feuds, without com- 
promising principle 1 The Spirit of God seems to be moving 
within the Church, expanding the views of men and enlarg- 
ing their hearts. Yet we do not desire a greater and closer 
unity than there was in the primitive Churches ; it would, 
perhaps, not be desirable to dispense altogether with the 
different denominations. Such a measure would probably be 
injurious to Christian liberty and energy and might imper- 
ceptibly lead us to a new kind of popery — the natural out- 
gTOwth of centralization in ecclesiastical matters. But what 
we want is to take the sting out of denominationalism. 
Away with that denominational envy which is the mother of 
uncharitableness ! Remove that wall of exclusiveness which 
is akin to popery ! Let there be liberty in the great Church 
of Christ. Let no new sects be formed for every immaterial 
difference in doctrine or liturgy. Let that spiritual 
and ecclesiastical pride be removed which has been the 
source of all the schisms and heresies within the Church ; 
and, being united in faith and rooted in charity, let us abound 
in good works and promote the cause of the Church of Christ, 
within which there may be separate denominations analogous 
to the various associations and Churches of primitive Chris- 
tianity. Yes, let us look upon them as analogous to those, 
taking into consideration the different circumstances of times 
and cguntriegfi 



126 Roman Catholicism. 

We think that Roman Catholics have not much reason for 
sneering at us on account of our differences, especially when 
we consider the inherent liberty of Protestantism and the 
outspoken character of its members. The divisions that we 
have openly acknowledged, Eoman Catholics harbour con- 
cealed within their Church, as we shall see in a subsequent 
lecture. 



Part IL 



THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE INFALLL 
BILITY-BOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH 
OF ROME. 



LECTUEE I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CHURCH-INFALLIBILITY HAS NOT 
SETTLED CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH. 

IN the preceding lectures, we have briefly reviewed the 
arguments which Roman Catholic divines generally ad- 
vance to prove their Church's claim to infallibility, and found 
that they are not conclusive. We have seen, too, in what 
sense the Church of Christ is infallible. Our researches have 
led us to the conclusion that the Word of God, with the 
assistance of the Holy Ghost, is the infallible element in the 
Church. We believe that both in the Church of E-ome and 
in the other Christian bodies those that are saved, are saved 
through this enlightening influence and no other. What- 
ever Eoman Catholic zealots may say to the contrary, we 
are thoroughly convinced, that the doctrine of hierarchical 
or papal infallibility and the other distinctive Eoman dogmas 
occupy very little the minds of the Christians within their 
commimion ; these distinctive tenets are, as it were, in the 
background of their souls and do not enter into their spir- 
itual life. Besides, there are great truths underlying the 
errors of Rome, and the Spirit of God leads the sincere men 
among them to minimize the distinctive erroneous doctrines 
and thus to cling to these truths, separating the chaff from 
the wheat. Nay, the greater the errors, the greater the 
truths that underlie them. Now, sincere men, in their pro, 
cess Oi minimizing, lose sight of the errors, fasten their at- 

9 



130 Roman Catholicism, 

tention solely on tlie truths and believe in them as the ob- 
jects of their faith. Thus we are justified in believing that 
good Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians have the 
same faith and are animated by the same spirit all the world 
over. The Spirit of God leads both, although in difierent 
ways, to the knowledge of the same truth. This reflection 
should serve as a caution to our bigotry. 

The result of our preceding enquiries is, that dejure the 
Roman Catholic hierarchy is not infallible. We could have 
compassed the same object by proving that the Church 
of Rome has actually erred, distorting some doctrines and 
adding others to the deposit of faith, in a word, that she is 
de facto fallible; for the institution that is not infallible de 
facto cannot be said to enjoy this gift dejure. The errors of 
the Church of Rome have been so often and so thoroughly 
discussed and refuted, that we consider it needless for us to 
enter extensively upon this field of controversy. We shall rest 
content in the remaining lectures of this course, with in- 
dicating some features that may assist us in understanding 
the nature and spirit of the Roman system. 

And, in the first place, we maintain that Roman Catholics 
do not realize and attain the end for which they contend, 
that the gift of infallibility has been bestowed upon the 
Church. We shall show, in this lecture, that the Roman 
hierarchy, with the pope as its head, although claiming in- 
fallibility for that purpose, is unable to settle controversies 
f faith. 

At the outset, in settling such controversies, they start 
with the supposition that he who raises them must be governed 
by evil passions and instigated by Satan to difier from the 
teaching of the Church; for, since they believe her infallible 
and her doctrine the truth, they conclude that doubt as to 



Infallibility and Controversies of Faith, 131 

the truth of her teaching can arise from wicked motives 
alone. But above all, they suspect his sincerity ; for they 
assume that he cannot but know the truth of the Church, and 
that he knowingly and obstinately resists it. They believe 
that their Church bears so luminously the marks of being the 
authorized expounder of truth, to wit, her unity, sanctity, 
catholicity, and apostolicity, that whatever reasons may 
justify an outsider in not embracing her doctrines, a member 
who is surrounded by all her light cannot have no plea justify- 
ing him in controverting her teaching. They cannot plead 
for him "invincible ignorance" or the love of truth, and 
therefore their system compels them to doubt his sincerity, 
from the very outset. What an impression must the theory 
of his being a turbulent spirit and an obstinate heretic, en- 
tertained a priori by that infallible tribunal, produce on the 
enquirer after truth who is conscious of his honesty ! Instead 
of inspiring him with a spirit of reconciliation and submission, 
it tends to alienate his affections from the hierarchy, for he 
feels that his moral character is impugned. He is anxious 
to have light in his difficulties, but the very manifestation of 
his doubts is looked upon with suspicion. He is conscious 
that there is no good understanding between him and that 
part of his Church which claims infallibility. Does such an 
impression conduce to a satisfactory settlement of the con- 
troversy'? 

But will it be settled if it be allowed to go before the 
judge 1 It is an acknowledged maxim that, in determining 
any matter in dispute, the judge shall not be one of the liti- 
gant parties j but the contrary is the rule in Boman Catholic 
controversy. When the enquirer doubts the teaching of the 
hierarchy and defends the opposite doctrine, who is the judge 
between them? The Bible? No. Tradition? No; but 



132 Roman Catholicism, 

the hierarchs themselves. And what judgment will they 
give % Undoubtedly, they will confirm their own teaching, 
however erroneous it may be. Is it not plain that con- 
troversies of faith cannot be settled in this manner % They 
are rather perpetuated by perpetuating the teaching which 
gave them life and being. 

Now, is the character of these judges such as to inspire 
confidence % The court consists either of the whole episco- 
pate, or, since the Vatican council, of the pope alone, with 
his curia. Does this court bear unmistakably the 
marks of infallibility? By no means. Commencing with 
the head and passing a superficial glance over the episcopal 
body, it bears the unmistakable marks of partiality. They 
are a body of men like other men, full of human frailties, 
blinded by the glitter and pride of their dignity, and by 
human passions, quick to anger, slow to forgive. They try 
to everpower the accused enquirer by the external show of 
ecclesiastical splendour and despotism. There is no worse 
despotism than that of spiritual lords. They themselves hold 
the doctrine in controversy; therefore the Church holds it ; 
therefore all the members must believe it. Whosoever does 
not believe as they do is a heretic, and must be dealt with 
accordingly. Can the enquirer be convinced by such a body 
of spiritual lords % Is this to be our kind and loving Mother- 
Church % 

How different from theirs is our judge of controversies. 
We find no difficulty in believing calmly, in our own mind, 
that a Book whose pages we read with all sincerity in our 
closet is the infallible Word of God ; but we find it impossi- 
ble to believe that such a body of spiritual lords is infallible. 
In the Bible we see the marks of infallibility ; in the episco- 
pal body or the pope we fail to detect them. When we read the 



Infallibility and Controversies of Faith. 133 

Bible, otir passions are not aroused and goaded by ill-treat- 
ment or the vindictiveness of other men ; but if we should 
have to listen, for the salvation of our souls, to such a tribu- 
nal of controversy, there is every danger that our tempers 
would be provoked by their spiritual pride and priestly 
despotism. 

And how does the episcopate or the pope, as a tribunal, 
proceed against him who is to be judged % They exclude 
discussion, and demand unreserved, absolute and immediate 
subjection. They ask of him : Art thou the author of this 
publication, and dost thou hold such and such a doctrine % 
If the answer be in the affirmative, they demand recantation; 
and if that be refused, condemnation immediately follows. 

Before giving a decision, the judge should follow the 
maxim : Audi altercmi partem. But the Boman Catholic 
judge does not follow this principle ; for, although himself 
one of the interested parties, he denies the benefit of defense 
to the accused. The real question should be, not whether 
the party holds such and such a doctrine, but whether it be 
true or erroneous ; and it should be so settled that real con- 
viction of the mind would result. To decree the truth or 
falsehood of a controverted doctrine, without any previous 
discussion whatever, and to demand immediate and absolute 
submission, savours altogether of spiritual despotism, and can- 
not satisfy the mind ; and where the mind is not persuaded, 
there is no real settlement of controversy. Such a settlement 
requires to be rational, for men will not allow themselves to 
be led and silenced like ignorant brutes j they demand to be 
treated with the deference due to rational beings. If a 
member, therefore, disagrees with the pope or the bishops of 
the Church, in matters of faith, he must make up his mind 
beforehand that he will be condemned by them ii* he does 



134 Roman Catholicism, 

not submit to their decree; or if he chooses not to incur the 
wrath of a powerful hierarchy, he is compelled to hold his 
doctrine in secret. Yes, this fear of incurring condemnation 
from the spiritual lords tends to fill the Church of Rome 
with hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. 

In controversies about spiritual matters, or the internal 
concerns of the soul, the rules of adjudication should not be 
borrowed from the procedure of secular tribunals ; for these 
judge only of external things, and settle disputes by exami- 
nation of facts and application of laws, without intending to 
produce internal conviction in any of the litigants ; it may 
be produced, but it is not essential to the settlement of the 
dispute. It is far otherwise in spiritual things. Here the 
controversy cannot be considered as settled if the mind has 
not been convinced. Now, such a convincing settlement can 
be better produced by God than by man ; and we believe 
that He effects it by His Word. The silent page of God's 
Word would speak more powerfully and efficaciously than 
the thunders of a privileged hierarchy. 

This will appear still more evident if we consider the 
nature of their decrees and definitions. One might expect 
that they would use such clear and precise language as to 
exclude every misunderstanding. But it is a well-known 
fact that the terms employed are obscure, and unintelligible 
save to a privileged class. In fact, they have a terminology 
of their own, understood only by their theologians. In fram- 
ing their definitions and decrees every endeavour is put forth 
to avoid committing themselves. Human prudence lurks in 
every word and phrase. Now, definitions begotten in human 
prudence, and couched in cautious terms will also be read 
and appreciated with human prudence, and accepted with a 
minimizing caution ^ for the Spirit of God does not speak 



Infallibility and Controversies of Faith. 133 

through tliem. How can it be expected that they should 
produce the conviction of divine faith? They may beget 
illusion for a time, but not conviction. Hence we find that 
the decrees of this infallible ecclesiasticism always excite 
new and fiercer controversies — some interpreting them in this, 
others in that sense. Councils have had to be multiplied, 
decree after decree issued, and still the controversy has re- 
mained substantially as it was before. Of what use is eccle- 
siastical infallibility if its decrees and definitions do not 
settle controverted questions, if its terms are intelligible 
only to those who are advanced in theology, if even they 
stand in need of another interpreter] I must use my 
human reason and all the rules of criticism in order to un- 
derstand them. If my interpretation of the Bible does not 
give me divine revelation, as they teach, but only my own 
thoughts, how can my interpretation of papal or episcopal 
decrees give me anything more than my own private views 
of them % How can I possibly by them obtain divine truth % 
It is evident, therefore, that the Koman Catholic infallibility 
does not meet the end for which it is asserted. 

They reply that the decrees and definitions are the utter- 
ances of the living Church, and that the living Church will 
explain them by the limng voice, if they require it. 

We answer, written definitions and decrees are, in the 
Roman Catholic sense, another Scripture which requires 
interpretation. Now how may I come within the hearing of 
the living voice of the Church in order to obtain an authentic 
and infallible explanation 1 Surely, the individual priest or 
bishop to whom I have recourse is not the Church, but a 
fallible man, like myself, and may labour under the same, 
nay, worse difficulties than my own. Shall I write to the 
pope 1 Will he consider my application worthy of a reply ? 



136 Roman Catholicism, 

And if he writes to me, will his letter be an answer e.x 
cathedra^ in order to assure me of its infallibility % Or, will 
it be only a private letter? How may I know it to be ex 
cathedra ? And after all, if ex cathedra^ it would be only a 
letter, a written document, another Bible, and how shall I 
interpret it 1 Shall I go to Kome, to obtain infallible instruc- 
tion out of the infallible pope*s own mouth? Will he admit 
me to an audience ? If so, will he speak to me ex cathedra, 
or only as a private doctor 1 We are told that ex cathedra 
utterances ought not to be too common, and should be given 
only in extraordinary emergencies. How, then, shall I be 
able to hear the living voice of the Church, in order to 
remove my doubts ? When Roman Catholics inveigh against 
the dead letter of the Bible, they are logically compelled to 
inveigh also against the dead letter of the decrees of their 
popes and councils. They should consequently give us easy 
access to the pope speaking ex cathedra or to a permanent 
general council. The latter would be a chimera. We know 
from history with what great difficulties the assembling of 
general councils has always been beset. They have required 
almost always the assistance of secular governments; and 
besides, such a permanent council would permanently deprive 
the flocks of their pastors ; it would, therefore, involve moral 
and physical impossibilities. Whom, therefore, does the 
living voice of the living Church reach ? Only those who 
were present in the general councils hitherto held. Oh, 
happy few ! You alone have enjoyed the blessing of receiv- 
ing the rule of faith that Christ intended for all his people ; 
of receiving it, not entire, but in some points only — those 
that were then defined ! What a complicated machinery is 
this Roman Catholic tribunal for settling controversies of 
faith ! And after all, how inaccessible ! how utterly useless 



Infallibility and Controversies of Faith, 137 

for the purpose it is intended to compass ! What an imposi- 
tion upon the deluded members ! 

After all, they are compelled to give up their boasted limng 
voice of the Church, and to come back to written documents, 
the definitions and decrees of their councils and popes. Do 
they thus not virtually acknowledge that these are their Bible? 
To a Bible, then, as a rule of faith, they must return, although 
it be a Bible made by themselves — a Bible the canon of 
which is uncertain and constantly on the increase as in the 
process of ages definitions and decrees are multiplied — a 
Bible the contents of which are not within the covers of one 
volume, but scattered throughout the ponderous folios of 
acts of councils and papal constitutions — a Bible which, 
instead of instructing and composing the mind, bewilders it ; 
instead of giving peace to the heart, disturbs it ; instead of 
teaching the eternal truths of salvation, establishes and glori- 
fies, nay, deifies, the pope and the hierarchy of the Church of 
Rome — a Bible that banishes the true Bible of God and places 
itself in its stead. Such is the Boman Catholic Bible which 
they are compelled to admit, and do actually admit — a Bible 
which is the most insidious rival of the true Bible ; for, as it 
has no visible existence in one volume, it is difficult to refer 
to it by chapter and verse, and therefore is less assailable ; 
but, nevertheless, it is itself a powerful assailant under the 
shelter of what is called the living voice of the Church. 

From what has been said we conclude that the decrees of 
the Church are not of a nature to produce conviction, and to 
settle controversies of faith. Let us now see if the means 
they employ to enforce submission to these decrees are calcu- 
lated to efiect this end. 

The first weapon they use against those who refuse sub- 
mission is excommunication. It is said to be a spiritual 



138 Roman Catholicism. 

sword, but it has terrible temporal consequences. Tliey are 
not content with anathematizing the doctrine of the enquirer, 
but they condemn the person himself. As excommunication 
affects primarily and principally the soul, they should not only 
possess the power of condemning the soul, but also have a 
knowledge of the state of the conscience of the person against 
whom the excommunication is fulminated ; for it would be 
unjust to inflict so terrible a punishment on one whose con- 
science is clear. E'ow, God alone has the power to save and to 
condemn ; He alone is the awful judge of consciences ; He 
alone is the searcher of hearts and can know the state of the 
conscience. Excommunication, in their sense, not only means 
exclusion from the Church, both externally and internally, 
but implies also a curse. An excommunicated person is con- 
sidered as lying under th6 anathema of their Church and of 
God ; for they believe that God blesses and curses b}'- the 
mouth of the Church, that is, of the pope and his hierarchy. 

Nay, they go so far as to excommunicate and curse even 
the dead, and we could cite several instances of this revenge- 
ful proceeding. Most people are aware that Wickliffe was 
cursed long after his death, that his bones were exhumed 
and burnt, and the ashes thereof scattered to the four winds 
of heaven. If their wrath extends even to the dead, what 
must it be when it is kindled against the living ? Where is 
the tenderness of Mother Church ? 

Excommunication can have no effect on the soul, for it does 
not proceed from an authority that has the power and search- 
ing eye of God Almighty and Omniscient. But it has, never- 
theless, some external and temporal effects greatly to be 
dreaded. It excludes him who is struck by it from partici- 
pation in the sacraments and all the other rites and ordinances 
ox the Church. No^, il they really believe that their Church 



Infallibility mtd Controversies cf Faith 139 

is the true one, they do not follow the example of the Good 
Shepherd. They determinedly exclude the excommunicated 
from the hope of ever returning to their Church by not merely 
depriving him of the means of grace, but by not even allow- 
ing him to enter their places of worship. If he dared to enter, 
he would be driven out by force, and so long as he remained, 
the oflS.ciating priest could not proceed in the celebration of 
the mass. Thus he is deprived altogether of the means of 
becoming convinced of his errors, and of being brought to 
adopt other views. Nay, more \ the " children" of this ten- 
der Mother Church are forbidden all intercourse whatsoever 
of a social or religious nature with the excommunicated. 
Even the common offices of charity which God has enjoined 
on all men are prohibited in his behalf. Excommunication 
has, therefore, a dreadful outward effect on the excommuni- 
cated person. By it he becomes an outcast from the society 
of Roman Catholics. If he be happy enough to form new 
associations, or to join other bodies of Christians whose views 
coincide with his own, he need not care. In that case, he 
will not feel so much the loss of the society and good will of 
his former friends. But he need not look for such compen- 
sation in an exclusively Boman Catholic country. Whoever 
has the Church for his foe, in a country where she is power- 
ful and influential, must prepare himself for much suffering 
or else expatriate himself and seek peace elsewhere. Alas 1 
that the love of the Church should lead men to such unchari- 
table proceedings ! But no ! it cannot be the love of that 
fair Church of Christ 'which is the kingdom of truth ; on the 
contrary, it is the bigotry of sect, and the self-love of the 
priestly caste within that sect ! Would to God Boman 
Catholics trusted more in the power of the truth, and less 
in the weapons of carnal warfare I 



140 Roman Catholicism, 

But can excommunication settle controversies of faith % 
By no means. Coercion was never intended by Christ to 
convince men's minds of the truth, and without this convic- 
tion there can be no real settlement of controversies. The 
dread of excommunication, with all its temporal consequences 
hanging over one's head, tends to fill the Church of Rome 
with hypocrites and hidden unbelievers. 

We shall consider, in our next lecture, the other coercive 
weapons of the Church of E,ome. 



LECTUEE II. 

THE COEKOIVE POWER OF THE ROMAN CHURCH MILL 
TATES AGAINST HER CLAIM TO INFALLIBILITY. 

ONE of the worst features of episcopal and papal infal- 
libility is the coercive power to which Rome lays claim 
and which she uses with a spirit that can only be character- 
ised as persecuting, in order to extirpate heretics. It makes 
one shudder to read the history of the revolting and 
heartleKSs cruelties to which the system of infallibility has 
given rise. The very record of these cruelties condemns the 
Church of Rome for ever. One can scarcely believe that 
they could have been perpetrated under the sacred name of 
Christianity. 

Yet so it is. The evidences that the Church of Rome is 
possessed by a persecuting spirit are so numerous that we 
hardly know where to begin. With the facts before us, what 
other conclusion can we come to — at what other result can 
we arrive, than that the Church of Rome is thirsty for the 
blood of heretics % The ground taken by the Church has 
been that heresy is a crime to be punished with torture and 
death ; that the Church is the judge of what constitutes 
heresy, and has a right to impose punishments upon all who 
deny her teachings. She not only claims to exercise control 
in all spiritual matters, bub over mind and body also. 

Roman Catholics who are at all conversant with the 
history of their Church do not deny that at times an undue 



142 Roman Catholicism, 

and harsh use has been made of the coercive power ; but they 
attribute this abuse not to the Church, but to the secular 
instruments employed to carry out her decrees. They main- 
tain that the Ch urch never approved of these excesses of 
harshness and cruelty. They contend, also, that they were 
caused rather by the political reasons which secular govern- 
ments had in view in extirpating heretics, than by any cruel 
disposition on the part of the Church. 

The fact is, the Church claims and has confirmed this 
claim, by recent papal bulls and encyclicals referred to in 
the notorious syllabus and accepted by the Roman Catholic 
world, that she has temporal coercive power, and that the 
State is bound to assist her in executing the decrees of this 
power. And as she claims also to have control over 
the State, all the excesses and abuses of the coercive power 
at which she winks must be laid at her door. 

They are radically and fearfully wrong. How can they 
prove the claim to coercion ? From Scripture ? No. Christ 
says, " My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom 
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I 
should not be delivered unto the Jews : but now is my 
kingdom not from hence/' But they defend it by arguments 
drawn from the nature of society. The Church, they say, is 
a perfect society or kingdom, and as such must be endowed 
with legislative, judicial and coercive powers. What would 
be the use of her laws, if she had no power of enforcing 
them ? She is a visible society, and therefore has not only 
authority over the souls, but power also over the bodies of 
men. 

It is sad to reflect that any ecclesiastical body should put 
forth such astounding claims and thus become a terror to all 
members of the Church. I feel rather inclined to be lenient 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility, 143 

than severe on the Church of Rome, but candour compels me 
to see her in her true light. I have no space to enter into 
details, but what I assert, both in this and my other lectures, 
I can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The system of 
infallibility logically leads Rome to be not only the most 
bigoted, but also the most cruel of Churches. And all this 
bigotry and cruelty assumes, in her communion, the appear- 
ance of godly zeal. 

We know that Roman Catholics disavow the cruelties 
which taint the history of their Church, and emphatically 
maintain that her present attitude is altogether different. 
But do they disclaim also the gift of infallibility, the coercive 
power, and the supreme control over the State, from which 
all the obnoxious and repulsive traits of their Church flow 
as the stream from its source % 

They claim that the coercive power is essential to infalli- 
bility in order to settle controversies of faith. We maintain, 
on the contrary, that such a power is rather prejudicial to 
that end. 

When any member is accused of heresy, the Church sum- 
mons him before her tribunal ; asks him if such or such 
doctrines are his ; commands him to recant and submit him- 
self, without any discussion and without hearing the proofs 
of what is considered the truth ; and if he refuses, he is 
excommunicated and sentenced to undergo due punishment. 
But the Church herself does not pretend to execute the penal 
sentence. For this purpose he is handed over to the secular 
power, called the secula/r a/rm of the Church, which is com- 
pelled to obey her behests and assist her in the extirpation 
of heretics, under pain of excommunication, interdict, or 
deposition. In countries where the Church of Rome is pre- 
dominant, there exists an intimate connection between 



144 Roman Catholicism. 

Church and State, by virtue of which the State is the 
executive 'power of the Church. In such countries the State 
generally looks upon heresy as high treason, and treats the 
heretic accordingly. Such is the policy of the Chui'ch, which 
enables her to shirk responsibility for such cruelties as the 
State may employ. 

But she is nevertheless accountable for them, Are not 
the officers of the State her children too % If they are such 
willing tools as to become the executive power of the Church, 
can they not also be restrained by her command % Has she 
no excommunications to fulminate against them for their 
executive cruelties % Alas, it is the Church herself that dic- 
tates the punishment, directs its execution, inspires the 
officers with cruelty and inflames them with hatred and 
bigotry. And as they act at her instigation and under her 
influence, she is responsible for all that they do. Church 
and State frequently corrupt each other, in the Church of 
Home, by promoting mutually their own selfish interests. 

Now, can a judge of controversies that uses such coercive 
means settle them in foro interno ? Can it be possible that 
the State as the executive power of the Church should efiect 
what the Church herself cannot effect ? Christ Himself 
excluded such means effectually when He declared that 
His kingdom was not of this world, but within us. Yes, 
^* loithin us ; " it is obvious then that controversies must be 
settled by internal conviction. Any other way of adjusting 
them would be contrary to the will of the Great Head of the 
Church. To determme them by the State, as the secular arm 
of the Church's coercive power, makes her ipse facto a ^* king- 
dom of this world." It is not a sign oi infallibility but o.. 
weakness, not oi divine institution, but of human policy and 
design ; not of reliance on God but on the power of man. 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility. 145 

Such means, instead of purging tlie Churcli of heresy, fill 
her with hidden heretics and unbelievers. And is not this 
actually the case % Can you find any body of Christians in 
which there is so great a number of infidels as in the Eoman 
Catholic Church % They abound most in countries where 
coercive measures are most frequently resorted to. 

But why did secular princes and governments lend their 
aid to this coercive power] Why did they become the 
executive power of the Church % Partly because they thought 
by this means to consolidate their own authority, but prin- 
cipally because they were compelled to obey the commands 
of the Church on pain of being excommunicated and deposed, 
or of seeing their countries placed under the ban of the 
Church, should they dare to disobey. Rome, on account of 
her supreme authority and infallibility, claims the power of 
not only excommunicating but also of deposing princes and 
of punishing whole countries by depriving them of the means 
of grace. History affords us many instances of the exercise 
of this power of deposing princes and of absolving their sub- 
jects from the oath of allegiance ; and Rome has re-asserted, 
in the recent syllabus, nearly all those obnoxious powers 
which the popes exercised in the middle ages overl princes 
and governments. They are in abeyance at present, but 
would be employed if opportunity afforded and prudence 
permitted it. To what extremes will not the claim to 
infallibility lead 1 

An upright judge never avoids the light of day, but rather 
courts publicity. But such is not the case with the pope and 
his prelates. They have a spy-system and a secret tribunal — 
the Inquisition. For the existence of such a tribunal they 
require not only the approbation, but also the active co- 
operation of the secular power. Thanks to humanity and 

10 



146 Roman Catholicism. 

tlie weakened condition of the temporal influence of the Papal 
See, this institution cannot now indulge in its cruel and 
heartless activity. But at the time when the Church of 
Kome had spiritual and temporal sway in the courts of 
Europe, it existed universally wherever she predominated. 
There was not a city, village, hamlet, or household to which 
this formidable secret tribunal had not excess by its spies or 
secret emissaries, and it would again exert its pestilential 
power, should the papacy ever regain its former influence. 

The inquisition is acknowledged to be a practical part of 
the Roman infallibility-system, and would give signs of its 
former life, should it appear prudent and feasible. It is 
admitted by all Roman Catholics that their system is doc- 
trinally exclusive and intolerant ; nay, they glory in this 
exclusiveness. Now, as there is no religious doctrine which 
has not its practical import, the Church of Rome, whenever 
and wherever she has the power, must on account of this 
doctrinal exclusiveness become also practically a persecuting 
Church. As a matter of course, practical intolerance cannot 
exist without a secret tribunal whose object it is to enquire 
into the faith of the members and judge those who are sus- 
pected of heresy. 

Now let me ask what kind of men were and would again 
be the judges of such a tribunal, should the Church of Rome 
ever obtain sufficient power to coerce in the old wayl 
Surely, the office is a most odious one. Its exercise demands 
the extinction of all kindly and charitable feelings, and 
actual delight in extreme cruelty ; since its objects are to 
find out and exterminate heresy, to overcome obstinacy by 
fearful tortures, to subdue heretics by bodily sufferings ; if 
necessary, to hang, quarter or burn them, and render their 
names infamous to future generations of Churchmen. In a 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility. 147 

word, as the institution is the offspring of bigotry and intol- 
erance, its judges must be the most bigoted and intolerant 
persons that can be found. Men with humane and Christian 
feelings would be unfit to fill so odious an office. Judges 
without guile and devoid of Jesuitical cunning could not find 
out the secret heresy of the soul. Liberal-minded men 
would scarcely prevail upon heretics to recant. Upright and 
high-spirited men would consider it beneath them to send 
forth an army of spies, to employ knaves to act as torturers 
and to conduct the whole judicial process in secrecy and 
darkness. Kind-hearted men could not bring themselves to 
witness the heart-rending tortures of the unfortunate victims. 
History gives us the character of these inquisitors, and it is 
by no means flattering. 

And who are the criminals to be judged and condemned 
by this awful tribunal % Sincere enquirers after truth — men 
who, rather than recant, suffer willingly, even joyfully, the 
keenest tortures and the most cruel death as martyrs of the 
truth; innocent men and women who have been falsely 
accused by their enemies ; persons who are obnoxious to the 
inquisitors themselves, or to some influential worldly Church- 
man. Whosoever even suspects a person guilty of heresy is 
bound to accuse him, otherwise he is in danger of being him- 
self prosecuted as an abettor of heresy. This dreadful insti- 
tution is a firebrand thrown into the midst of a kingdom 
— through every grade of society. The husband is bound 
to accuse his wife, and the wife her husband ; the children 
must inform against their parents, and these against their 
children; brothers, sisters, and friends are bound to accuse 
each other before this tribunal. All sacred ties and connec- 
tions must be disregarded and torn asunder at the bidding 
of the Holy Omce. 



148 Roman Catholicism. 

And the manner in which the accused party is judged is 
most unjust, heartless, and cruel. He does not know who 
his accusers are, nor is he even told the crime he is charged 
with, in order that if he should be conscious to himself of 
having ever said or done anything contrary to the faith with 
which he is not in fact charged, he may unguardedly disclose 
that, imagining it to be the very crime of which he stands 
accused. He is not allowed counsel or defense. Any 
lawyer who undertook his cause would incur excommunica- 
tion. Two witnesses are enough in order to convict him ; 
and even the depositions of those whose testimony would not 
be admitted in other trials, either from personal enmity or 
public infamy, are received as evidence by this tribunal. 
The whole aim and object of the judges is to convict the 
prisoner at all hazards. For this purpose they employ the 
most subtle and cruel means. Their interrogatory is cunning 
and captious. The party accused is thrown into a horrid 
dungeon and tortured in the most exquisite manner, in order 
to elicit a confession of heresy, and often the unhappy vic- 
tim, overcome with pain, makes a confession or recantation 
of an offence of which he is not guilty. Often he succumbs 
under the cruel tortures, and so dies a martyr to the truth, 
before sentence is pronounced on him. From the sentence 
of this tribunal there is no appeal ; it is final. The usual 
sentence was death by fire, thus symbolizing that the heretic 
deserved the fire of hell. 

" No recantation or assurance of orthodoxy could save the 
accused ; he was allowed confession, absolution and commu- 
nion, and his profession of repentance and change of mind 
was accepted in for o sacramenti, but he was told at the same 
time that it would not be accepted judicially, and he must 
die as ii he were a relapsed heretic. Lastly, to fill up the 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility, 149 

measure, his innocent family was deprived of his property by 
legal confiscation, half of it passing into the papal treasury, 
the other half into the hands of the inquisitors. Life only, 
said Innocent III., was to be left to the sons of misbelievers, 
and that as an act of mercy. They were therefore made in- 
capable of civil offices and dignities." (The Pope and the 
Council, by Janus, p. 197.) 

" The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in 
the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign domin- 
ion of life and death over all Christians, claimed by the 
popes as God's representatives on earth. Every prince or 
civil magistrate, according to the constant doctrine of the court 
of Rome, was to be compelled simply to carry out the sentence 
of the inquisitors, by the following process : first, the magis- 
trates were themselves excommunicated on their refusal, and 
then all who held intercourse with them. If this was not 
enough, the city was laid under interdict. If resistance was 
still prolonged, the officials were deprived of their posts, and 
when all these means were exhausted, the city was deprived 
of intercourse with other cities, and its bishop's see remov- 
ed." {Ibidem, p. 195.) 

I have not in the least overdrawn the picture which history 
presents to us of this secret tribunal of the Church of Rome. 
Any impartial student of the records of the Inquisition will 
confess that I have drawn it rather lightly. I would rather 
minimize than maximize the errors of Rome. In fact, I 
point out oAly those features of this Church which either 
constitute her very nature or necessarily follow from her 
fundamental principles. I wish to describe her not so much 
as she was but as she is. I omit, therefore, all those enor- 
mous details of crime with which her history abounds, and 
with which oar controversial books are often filled. 



150 Roman Catholicism. 

The office of the Inquisition still exists in the Church, 
although in a modified form; to it are referred the prohibition 
of books, and all matters relating to the suppression of here- 
sy. The principle is there; and if time and cii'cumstances 
permitted, there is every reason to fear that it would show 
itself in its former hateful character. 

E'ow, is the existence of such a dreadful tribunal a mark 
of the infallibility of the Church % It is surely a condemna- 
tory mark. A Church that, on principle, coolly and deliber- 
ately uses such av/ful means in order to settle controversies of 
faith, and to stamp out heresies, cannot possess the divine attri- 
bute of infallibility. Will persons who have felt the power 
of such a tribunal ever become conAdnced that it defends or 
promotes the truth? Will they not be forever lost to a 
Church that creates a hell on earth in order to torture them 
into subjection? Instead of producing humble and free sub- 
mission, can the means which Rome employs produce any- 
thing but sullen obstinacy % 

One of the worst features in the coercive powers of this 
infallible Church is that she condemns to death those who 
difier from her from motives of conscience, the secular power 
being compelled to be the executioner of the Church. Her 
learned doctors justify the death-penalty inflicted on heretics. 
Thomas Aquinas, her leading theologian and doctor, who is 
held in so great esteem that his Summa Theologica, together 
with the Bible, is placed on the table in general councils, 
where controversies of faith are to be determined, lays down 
this doctrine {8umma Theologica^ Sec, quest, xi., art. 3) : 

"It is much more grievous to corrupt faith, which is the 
source and life of the soul, than to corrupt money, which only 
tends to the relief of the body. Hence, if coiners and other 
malefactors are justly put to death by the secular authority, 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility. 151 

much more may heretics not only be excommunicated, ^ut 
even justly put to death." 

I shall not lose time in refuting this monstrous doctrine. 
I merely remark that the analogy which Thomas Aquinas 
attempts to draw is of no value ; because in other crimes 
external acts only have to be proved, while in order to prove 
that a person is a heretic the conscience must be arraigned. 
It must be proved that he obstinately resists what is known 
to him as the truth. Does the Church's infallibility extend 
so far as to search the heart ? How can she know whether 
he resists her teaching from purely conscientious motives or 
from malice and obstinacy ? If it be evident to the pope and 
the bishops that they are infallible, are they justified in sup- 
posing that this infallibility dogma must be evident to every- 
body else? If a doctrine be believed by them as true, 
merely because they themselves hold it, must it be believed 
by everybody else for the same reason 1 

Homan Catholics themselves teach that the conscience is 
the immediate rule of our actions, so that, if anybody acts 
contrary to its dictates, he is guilty of a breach of God's law- 
Shall a person, then, betray his conscience by submitting 
himself to an authority whose infallibility he does not per- 
ceive, and embrace doctrines in which he cannot conscien- 
tiously believe ? The Church of Eome glaringly contradicts 
her own teaching on the conscience, by commanding absolute 
submission to her teaching and by condemning even to death 
anyone who dares refuse such siibmission. True ; a doctrine 
may be condemned as heretical, but to condemn any person 
as a heretic is an almost impossible thing ; it must be left 
to the Great Head of the Church who alone is the searcher 
and judge of hearts. The Church of Rome has too little oi 
haply no confidence in the protection of Christ. If a doctrine 



152 Roman Catholicism. 

be from God, Christ will nourish it in men's minds, in spite 
of what pope or bishops may do against it j it will take root 
there and bring forth good fruit. If, on the contrary, it be 
not of God, it will produce bad fruit and cannot permanently 
exist. 

The Church of Eome endeavours to make the Church of 
Christ a kingdom of this world ; hence she is compelled to 
use temporal means, even to the penalty of death, in order 
to sustain her dominion. And as it is impossible to ascer- 
tain whether a person be really a heretic, he is condemned 
merely on suspicion of heresy. Alas ! to what uncharitable 
consequences their horrid bigotry leads them ! The system 
of infallibility makes them readily suspect errors and heresies 
where they do not in fact exist. If, for instance, their 
stereotyped, antiquated, and unintelligible jargon be not em- 
ployed by any of their teachers or members, but the doctrine 
is explained in language that brings it home to the under- 
standing and conscience of the hearer or reader, he is sus- 
pected of heresy. They have similar suspicions of those 
writers and teachers who adapt themselves to the progressive 
spirit of the age. If any one makes discoveries of important 
truths unknown to past ages, as Galileo and others did, he is 
suspected of heresy. They look with the same disfavour 
upon any one of their members who is liberal in his views 
and sentiments towards those who differ from his Church, 
and who, in the spirit of charity, excuses them and regards 
them as true and sincere Christians. If any one makes light 
of superstitious rites which the Church herself has not made 
universal, he is suspected of heresy. 

There was a time when the mere suspicion of heresy was a 
sufficient reason for throwing a person into the dungeons of 
the Inquisition, and woe to him if he were once confined within 



Roman Coercion and Infallibility, 153 

the walls of that dreadful institution. Many a one entered 
there ; but few ever came out again. Tortures, excommuni- 
cation, and death were their lot. What was once the case 
might happen again, if the Church regained her full spiritual 
and temporal sway ; for these persecutions and cruelties were 
not pure accidents but were perpetrated on principle. 
They are the practical outcome of her doctrine that she is an 
infallible spiritual despot, having supreme supervision 
and control over the laws of the State, and authority to enlist 
its aid as the executive branch of her coercive power. True, 
these horrible doctrines are kept out of sight in mixed com- 
munities, but they were and are still, even in our time, 
carried out in countries where E-oman bigotry and exclu- 
siveness have unrestrained power. They have been taught 
ex cathedra by a number of popes and accepted by the whole 
hierarchy ; and they are the legitimate consequence of their 
doctrine of infallibility in controversies of faith. Infalli- 
bility, in theory^ may sound very sweet to anxious enquirers 
after truth, but infallibility, in 'practice and sober reality, is 
truly a monstrous thing. 

Have Roman Catholics, therefore, any reason to complain 
if we look upon their Church with suspicion and distrust 1 
Are not her awful claims and the records of her past history 
calculated to fill us with apprehension and dismay % Can 
we forget the fearful lessons her annals teach us % Where 
in all Christendom has there ever been a Church, whose 
record is so blood-stained as that of the Church of Eome % 
In what Church is bigoted exclusiveness a virtue, and the 
persecuting spirit a sign of meritorious zeal, save in the 
Church of Eome % Oh, men and brethren, would to God, 
that the Holy Ghost might descend on that Church and remove 



154 Roman Catholicism. 

the fearful stumbling-block of papal and hierarchical infalli- 
bility, building her anew " on the foundation of the Apos- 
tles and prophets, Christ Himself being the chief corner- 
stone ! " 



LECTUEE III. 

INFALLIBILITY NOT THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY IN THE 
CHURCH OF ROME. 

ROMAN Catholics boast of the unity of their Church 
which consists in the blind and absolute subjection of 
the laity to the clergy, of the clergy to the bishops, and of all 
to the pope. They teach that this unity is produced by a 
central principle which cements all the members into one com- 
pact body, and that this principle of unity is the infallible 
authority of the pope and the bishops. Their maxim is, that 
without infallibility there cannot be unity. Let us consider, 
in this lecture, this boasted Roman Catholic unity and see 
what it amounts to in reality. 

As we have proved before, the Church of Kome does not 
bear externally the marks of infallibility ; they themselves 
admit that this prerogative of the Church has to be proved by 
a long and intricate process of critical reasoning, of which only 
their learned divines are capable. Now, we maintain that 
the mere authority of a Church whose claims to infallibility 
are not self-evident is not a means of preserving unity. 

We admit that the " ipse dixit " of the teacher is a suffi- 
cient and convincing argument for pupils whose minds 
are undeveloped and unaccustomed to think. But 
when they begin to think and reflect for themseiveS;^ 



156 Roman Catholicism. 

they discover that the teacher is a man like them- 
selves and that truth is not all concentrated in him; 
in a word, that he does not show incontrovertible signs of 
being endowed with inerrancy. Having arrived at that con- 
clusion, they no longer believe everything that he asserts, 
unless he submits valid arguments for it ; and if they do not 
see as he sees, they do not think it any harm to differ from 
him. 

It is the same with the teaching of the Church of Kome. 
Those who are uncultivated and ignorant and have no minds 
of their own may be easily led by her and induced to swear 
by the " ijpse dixit " of the pope and his bishops, as unde- 
veloped pupils are led by the mere authority of their teacher. 

Hence the invariable policy of this body, wherever they 
have full sway, consists in keeping the people in ignorance. 
Never was the papacy higher and firmer on its throne than 
in the middle ages, when all the learning was confined to the 
priesthood, and the people were steeped in the grossest ignor- 
ance. Nowhere is Kome more predominant now than in 
countries where popular education lies prostrate. Nay, in 
Roman Catholic times and in purely Eoman Catholic coun- 
tries the education of the masses is a thing unheard of and 
discouraged in every possible way. Show me a Roman 
Catholic country where popular instruction is promoted. 
You cannot ; it would militate against their infallibility- 
system. Whatever feeble efforts they have made in modern 
times towards educating the masses have been forced upon 
them by the onward march of that Protestant civilization 
which lies round about them. 

It would appear that by faith they must understand a 
pious credulity which takes for granted everything 
that their clergy tell them. Surely, true faith is enlighten- 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity, 157 

ment, pre-supposes and produces enlightenment. Hence 
Christ came into the world when the Roman empire with 
its high Greek civilization had sufficiently prepared man- 
kind to receive the enlightened faith of Christianity. This 
could not have been effected in the midst of ignorance ; for 
ignorance is the mother of credulity and superstition. 

Whenever the Church of E-ome is unable to stem the cur- 
rent of modern progress and to resist any longer the demand 
for public schools, she cannot avoid following suit and reluc- 
tantly yields to the inevitable, in order to maintain her own ; 
but she is not content unless she has the youth under her 
immediate direction and control, so that she may prescribe the 
quantity and quality of teaching to be administeted. Again 
and again have the Roman pontiffs issued decrees against all 
popular education not controlled by the priesthood. Again 
and again have they solemnly declared that the civil power 
has no authority whatever to establish public schools, to in- 
terfere with the discipline or the arrangement of studies, and 
to examine and license the teachers. Again and again have 
they threatened with the censures of the Church those parents 
who, contrary to the will of their priests, dare to send their 
children to public schools established by the State. I 
need refer you only to the recent syllabus where these as- 
sumptions are promulgated to the whole world. We all 
know with what bitter animosity the Roman Catholic school 
question is discussed and fought over in all countries where 
the State, intent to rescue the masses from the gulf of ignorance 
and degradation, establishes a feasible and practical system of 
popular education. 

It is not love for the masses that prompts the hierarchs 
to yield to the clamour for popular education ; nor is it a 
disinterested and unalloyed love of the truth which produces 



158 Roman Catholicism, 

their agitation for separate schools^ wherever they cannot ob 
tain the entire control of the educational system ; but they 
are afraid that they may lose their hold on the minds and 
consciences of their people, if they allow their children to be 
educated in any other than the infallibility-groove, and to 
have their minds and characters formed in an atmosphere 
where the impartial truth, and not the all-overshadowing 
doctrine of Church-infallibility, forms the chief element. 
They must be taught to view everything with the eyes 
of the Koman hierarchy ; th.ej must be kept in ignorance of 
certain truths, especially in history, the knowledge of which 
would alienate them from the Church. They might become 
too wise, become imbued with what Protestants call the 
spirit of impartial enquiiy and liberty of conscience, and 
swear no longer by the " ipse dixit " of the Church. Nay, 
they are apprehensive that even the intercourse of their 
children with those of their Protestant neighbours may 
weaken and imperceptibly eradicate their docile faith in the 
tenets of the Roman Church. Hence they must be kept re- 
moved as far as possible from contaminating contact with 
Protestant children. In a word, they are trained to move 
and live in a world of their own. 

It is admitted by all who have enquired into the matter, 
that the secular education imparted in Roman Catholic 
separate schools is inferior to that given in the public 
schools. Hence they are unable to compete with Protes- 
tants in educational efficiency. Their lay teachers are gene- 
rally of inferior attainments, since as a rule they are not so 
well paid as their professional brethren in the public schools. 
Wherever possible, both for economical and other reasons, 
they employ nuns or monks who are altogether ignorant of 
the acquirements suitable for their pupils in practical life, 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity, 159 

and in their combat with, and advancement in the world. 
What a pity that the pope and the bishops should thus de- 
prive their innocent and confiding people of so many temporal 
advantages, merely in order that they may be enabled to 
maintain their own supremacy over them % 

But they say it is a love of religious education and training 
that induces them to establish separate schools. We answer 
that we know, both from experience and observation, that the 
children receive precious little of this religious training, even 
of the Roman stamp, in these schools. How seldom do the 
priests themselves visit them and teach therein. The fact is, 
they have either no time or are indifferent to the religious 
instruction of the children. And the teachers, are they 
able % and how much religious instruction do they actually 
impart % So far as religious knowledge is concerned, Roman 
Catholic day and Sunday schools compare unfavourably with 
Protestant religious training, imperfect as we confess that to 
be in its present state. 

Why, then, this great ado amongst Roman Catholics about 
having the control of popular education % For no other 
reason but to keep the rising generation within the pale 
of their Church. Mere external authority is their principle 
of unity ; therefore the people must be kept in a state of 
mental bondage. 

Those members of the Church of Rome who become en- 
lightned by education adhere only in a very loose way to the 
principle of authority. They admit the creeds and decisions 
of the hierarchy, because their enquiries have led them to be- 
lieve that the doctrines are founded on other reasons than 
the mere authority of the Church. You hear the enlightened 
Roman Catholic sometimes express himself as being a 
" Catholic from 'prmciphy' or a '^ Catholic from convictio^i,^* 



160 Roman Catholicism. 

by which he means to say that he believes the doctrines of 
his Church, not merely because the Church holds and 
teaches them, but because he thinks that he has other proofs 
which convince him of their truth. He would believe the 
same doctrines, although the episcopal body had not defined 
them. It is, therefore, not the principle of mere authority 
which keeps him within the Church. This is, so far as the 
enlightened member is concerned, an unnecessary principle 
of unity. Whatever therefore Roman Catholics may say to 
the contrary, ecclesiastical infallibility is not necessary for 
the unity of faith. 

But there are other members, who when thev become en- 
lightened, perceive not only that the Church has no external 
marks giving her a claim to infallibility, but that she has 
actually erred, and that her religious professions prove her to 
be fallible. Mere authority has never been sufficient to keep 
such men in the unity of the faith. 

To escape this danger the Church of Rome has always 
jealously striven to bring all higher education and the teaching 
of the universities also under her control. She cannot possibly 
hinder the education of the higher and wealthier classes, but 
she must have it under her direction, so that she may im- 
press on the minds of the students such principles only as 
will admit of no hostile developments against herself The 
professors, teaching in these higher institutions of learning, 
are required to take an oath that they will not teach anything 
that will in the least degree be injurious to the Church's 
authority ; it is insisted that such views should be incul- 
cated as will set it on a plausible basis. All the sciences are 
required to be subordinated to the teaching of the infallible 
Church. They have a kind of metaphysics that dovetails in 
with their theology. A free and untrammeled exercise of 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity. 161 

their reasoning powers and of sound common sense would 
soon lead the proficients in higher learning to the conclusion 
that they ought not to be credulous any longer. But it 
generally happens that they are kept in the Church, not in- 
deed by mere authority, but misguided by deceptive philoso- 
phical formulas from which they make logical deduc- 
tions in favour of the tenets of the Church and thus think 
that they are '^ Catholics on principle" 

We may, therefore, safely conclude that it is not the sup- 
posed infallible authority of the hierarchy which keeps its 
members in the unity of the faith. 

Again, we contend that, if ecclesiastical infallibility were 
necessary for the unity of faith, it should have the power of 
preventing disunion. In every institution, the provisions for 
preventing disruption are of great importance and manifest 
a great deal of wisdom and forethought. Now, in the 
Church of Rome, this very claim to infallibility seems to be 
a cause of disunion. This will appear evident if you reflect 
that it makes the Church stationary and unyielding. 
She is bound, on account of this claim, to hold and 
to maintain for ever what she has once decreed and defined 
in matters of faith and morals ; and, as a matter of course, 
this conservatism has given her the habit of being stifi'and 
inelastic also in disciplinary and merely accidental or secon- 
dary points. 

Humanity, on the other hand, is always marching onward. 
The Church sees in this progressive spirit of society nothing 
but evil. She tries hard to keep it back by putting a tight 
rein on it and tying it down. Instead of placing herself at 
the head of true progress and directing it in the right channel, 
she is continually found in antagonism to it, trying to destroy 
it, or at least to check it as much as possible. Hence, pro- 

11 



162 Roman Catholicism. 

gressive humanity, led by tlie God of History, instead of 
remaining with her, tears itself adrift from her ; and it would 
be well with it, if it followed Christ's religion contained in His 
inspired Word, which allows free development and sanctions 
true progress. It would appear that it was not so much 
opposition to doctrinal and dogmatical points which was the 
primary occasion of severing whole nations from the 
Roman communion ; but they were compelled to emancipate 
themselves from the control of the hierarchy on account of its 
hatred of social progress, of its retarding spirit and dull 
obscurantism. The Church of Kome, while pretending to be 
peculiarly adapted to the exigencies of human nature, fails 
to recognize one of its essential elements, blindly ignoring 
the signs of the times. A Church that does not know how 
to judge and estimate the progressive movements of society, 
and how to take her part in leading them to a fruitful issue, 
cannot possibly preserve the unity of Christendom. Now 
and then society will be in the van and ahead of her in pro- 
gressive knowledge and aspiration. It cannot then be driven 
back ; the Church is left behind, and a separation will be the 
inevitable result. The student of history will find that this 
obscurantism of the hierarchy was the real cause of the great 
religious movement of the sixteenth century, by which Rome 
lost the half of Europe. The West of Europe, by its contact 
with Greeks and Arabs in the East, had acquired new ideas 
which fermented in society and opened new avenues of pro- 
gress. Rome did not understand this spirit, and therefore, 
could not direct it. God, in His all- wise guidance, drew the 
nations towards the source of all true progress — the Bible. 
Society, with the Bible in hand for its guide, need have no 
fear of being driven back, but may advance with safety as 
much as it likes. 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity, 163 

A body of ecclesiastical rulers and dignitaries claiming 
infallibility, filled with too higli notions of their position, 
connected by no endearing ties with the common interests of 
their fellow-men, and keeping themselves aloof and separate 
from society in order to attract and maintain a certain 
superior and mystical respect, in a word, a priestly caste, 
which in reality constitutes the Church of Rome, cannot pos- 
sibly understand the wants of society and be the promoter of 
great social movements, because it is too tenacioasly con- 
servative of the old state of things. In placing itself at the 
head of progress and wishing it God speed, it would be in 
danger of surrendering or imperiling its infallibility. It is 
evident that a body that does not understand the signs of the 
times, although it may loudly claim infallibility, cannot 
preserve the unity of its flock, but must needs drive away 
many of its best sons, and with them whole multitudes of 
others. 

What took place in the sixteenth century and at other 
times is the case in our own day. Why those agitations in 
all Roman Catholic countries % Why that conflict we are 
witnessing everywhere between the Roman Catholic laity 
and clergy, between Church and State % Because the pope 
and his bishops are endeavouring to pull back the car of 
social progress. Pius IX. has solemnly condemned all the 
principles of modern civilization and declared that he can 
never be reconciled to them. Every existing constitution in 
Europe, with the exception of the Russian, is an outgrowth 
of this modern civilization \ Rome is in antagonism with it. 
She considers modern constitutionalism, liberty of conscience, 
religious toleration, free speech, a free press, popular education, 
the equality of all before the law, and all the other liberties 
which form the basis of our social machinery as so many 



164 Roman Catholicisnu 

damnable errors. No \ Rome does not understand the nature 
and aspirations of our modern social life, and therefore she has 
already lost the affections of many, and however unwilling 
nations may be to change their religion, she constrains them, 
by her obstinate and obscurantist policy, to oppose her and 
finally to separate themselves from her. They cannot but 
perceive that a Church which is constantly attempting to check 
the current of their social progress cannot be the Church of 
Christ. Therefore the Koman hierarchy cannot be that 
infallible body which is adapted to keep the nations together 
in religious unity. 

This will appear still more evident if we reflect that their 
system of infallibility is so cumbersome that disruption can- 
not be prevented for any length time. Formerly, before the 
Vatican council, infallibility was believed to reside in the 
voice, not of one bishop alone, nor of a number of bishops, 
but of the whole episcopal body. The consequence was that 
the remedy of an infallible decision could not be applied 
before the disease had advanced too far. How could it be 
possible to secure in time the infallible voice of the collective 
episcopal body % Before it could be heard, a complete and 
permanent disunion had already taken place. When a con- 
troversy of faith arose in any country, the bishops of that 
country generally met and condemned those who differed 
from them, but their definition and condemnation could not 
definitively settle the controversy, or restore unity, because 
infallibility was wanting. Both parties, therefore, claimed a 
right to their opinions. The case was brought before the pope ; 
but his infallibility was not an article of faith. To be 
cautious, therefore, and to use every human means in order 
not to commit himself was his best policy. He prudently 
took time for consideration, watching and waiting to see 



Infallibility Not tlie Principle of Unity. 165 

what turn events would take. The controversy, in the mean- 
time, was allowed to rage on from year to year, until the 
controverted doctrine had been completely established and 
taken root in a body that separated from the Church, and 
it was too late to repair the mischief. Yet it was not until 
then that the pope issued his Bull of condemnation and ex- 
communication But to what purpose % As he had not yet 
been declared personally infallible, it was not only too late, but 
had no infallible authority even then. The question, 
therefore, remained still undetermined, even for Roman 
Catholics themselves. The pope had nothing for it but 
either to wiite to all the bishops in order to ascertain the 
universal faith of the Church, or else to summon a general 
council. Both methods of ascertaining the faith of the 
episcopal body were troublesome, slow and expensive and 
could only come to an end long after complete disunion had 
taken place, and when a recall to the one fold was of no avail. 
Thus the council of Trent was held long after Protestantism 
had become a deep-rooted fact. Therefore the system of 
infallibility has never been a practical means in the Church of 
E-ome of preventing in a rational and effective manner dis- 
agreement on matters of faith. 

And it is difficult to see how the Vatican decree declaring the 
personal infallibility of the pope will mend matters. There 
is now complete centralization, all settlements of disputed 
questions depending on the official utterances of an old man. 
We fail to perceive how he can bring controversies within 
the Church to a speedier issue, having now the whole weight 
of the burden and its awful responsibility on his own shoulders. 
How can he, overwhelmed by the multiplicity of his other 
cares, settle controversies of faith, in all parts of the world, 
in time to prevent disruption % This very centralization of 



166 Roman Catholicism. 

infallibility is an inevitable cause of further misunderstand- 
ing and delay. 

There is another strong reason why the system of Church- 
infallibility is powerless to preserve the unity of faith. The 
principle of union should be active and promote the inner life 
of man. Men cannot be united in faith which is the life of 
the soul, unless the principle of unity in faith promotes this 
subjective vitality. We see clearly that the Bible and the 
Spirit of God possess this inherent potency. Hence whatever 
external differences may be found in evangelical Christendom, 
there is energy and activity there, not resulting in disunion, 
properly so called, but in displaying the vital unity of faith 
which stirs within them. It is not thus with the Church of 
Rome. There is no life in their unity ; all is stagnation in 
the slough of ecclesiastical infallibility. Individual effort in 
matters of faith is out of place in their system, since no man 
dares to think for himself It is the hierarchy which decides 
for all in general, and for every one in particular, for the 
layman as well as the clergyman, the individual bishop as 
well as the priest. Now, if they be let alone for a length of 
time, ^. e., supposing there be no disturbance of their peace 
for a long period, as happened in the middle ages ; the result 
will be unbroken slumber — deathly lethargy in matters of 
faith. The salvation of each individual is in the hands of 
others ; he has no need to trouble himself about it. His 
whole inner life remains in a state of torpor, so far as spirit- 
uality is concerned. In this stagnant state of a religious com- 
munity every vice must soon take root and flourish ; the seeds 
of corruption and decay will speedily ripen and mature at 
the expense of the soil by which they have been fed. Thus 
in the middle ages all were resting in undisturbed repose, on 
the ecclesiastical infallibilicy of the Church of Home, it was 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity. 1C7 

then that ignorance and vice predominated, and the germs of 
disunion soon began to develop themselves and bring 
forth fruit. It was then that several anti-popes claimed the 
papal chair, each of whom had numerous followers. It was 
then that the great schism existed in the Church for two 
generations, which was put an end to by the council of Con- 
stance. The Church had become so corrupt that even the 
bishops themselves acknowledged the necessity of a reforma- 
tion both in the head and members of the Church. And 
this reformation could not be brought about, even in the six- 
teenth century, except by direct revolt from the infallibility 
system. Thus Home lost millions of adherents whom, if her 
infallibility doctrine were of practical utility, she should have 
kept in the unity of faith. 

All this leads us to the conclusion that, if there is a 
measure of unity in the Church of Home, it is not the system 
of hierarchical infallibility that secures it. We do not deny 
that true Christians among them are united in the bond of 
faith hy the truths of the Bible ; but this is not the unity 
which is distinctively claimed for the Church of Home. There 
are other external and human reasons which give to that 
Church the semblance of unity she manifests to the world, 
but I cannot enter fully here into those reasons. On the one 
hand, it is the esprit de corps and the powerful self-interest 
of the higher clergy which unite them in a well-organized 
phalanx ; and on the other, it is the influence which the 
bishops know but too well how to exercise over the people 
which keeps the latter within the pale of the Church and 
cemented together by clerical domination and sacramenta- 
rian superstition. 

But, after all, there is not that unity in the Church of 
Rome ot which they boast so much when they argue against 



168 Roman Catholicism, 

Protestants; on tlie contrary there are many divisions 
among them. In the first place, they have more than one 
form of worship. There are different rites in their Church, 
such as the Latin, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Maronite, 
Syriac, Greek Melchitic, Chaldsean, Ethiopian, Ruthenian, 
Bulgaric, &c. In fact, the members of every Eastern nation 
that has re-united with Rome possess their own liturgy. 
The most widely-spread rite is the Latin, which has also its 
peculiar differences as between the various nations in which 
it prevails. But there are not only variations of rites, but 
also of discipline in the Churches denominated after the 
different rites. Protestants cannot differ more widely in 
disci[ line and form of worship than Roman Catholics do. 
Now, we do not blame the Church of Rome for these differ- 
ences ; we rather praise her for allowing them. What we 
desire is that they should not reproach us with our liturgical 
and disciplinary controversies. It is not these that consti- 
tute the divisions of Protestantism, but the spirit of jealousy 
and exclusiveness that some of us have inherited from Rome, 
and which seems to be an ingredient of corrupt human 
nature. We regret to have to admit that there exists a 
Protestant popery often as virulent and intolerant as the 
Roman papacy, and whatever division and uncharitableness 
there is among us arises from this cursed popery of our own 
nature. 

Yet after all, I believe that there is as much, if not more, 
hatred and disunion amongst the various rites of the Roman 
Catholic Church, than there is between the different Protest- 
ant denominations. In the Church of Rome, those who are 
born in one rite are not allowed to become members of the 
Church of another rite, or even to participate in its ministra- 
tions. Thus a member of the Latin Church is not permitted 



Infallibility Not the Principle of Unity, 169 

to join any of the Eastern rites, or to take holy orders 
therein, and vice versa. It is, moreover, a known fact that 
the Christians of one rite do not regard favourably those 
of another rite j they look upon one another as being in error, 
or as verging upon heresy, if not actually heretics. The 
union of the Eastern rites with the pope, the patriarch oi 
the Latin rite, is very slight, and on the least provocation 
they would break off communion with him. He has to ad 
very warily with them, tolerating many things that he would 
punish with the heaviest penalties in the Latin Church. 
His authority over them is rather nominal than real, and 
there appears to be a looser unity there than among us Pro 
testants. Even if we confine our observations to the Latin 
Churches alone, as principally known to us, we find as many 
religious jealousies and animosities among them as among 
the different Protestant Churches. We know that there is 
not much love lost, on this continent at any rate, between 
the Irish, French, and German Poman Catholics. But we 
shall not enter into their quarrels. Of course, the divisions 
arising from national jealousies and animosities do not destroy 
the unity of faith, and ours amount to nothing more than 
theirs. We are both deserving of blame for allowing our 
corrupt nature to deter us from a closer Christian unity 
and a more large-hearted charity. 

Again, there is not more division in the different Protestant 
denominations than there exists between the different religious 
orders and schools of divinity in the Church of Rome. The 
secular priests have very little regard for the monks and the 
other regular clergy. The former consider themselves the 
clergy of the Church, and look upon the latter as interlopers 
in their parishes; whilst the latter consider themselves 
more sanctified than the secular priests. If you wish to know 



170 Roman Catholicism, 

what real exclusiveness and religious intolerance is, you 
should become acquainted with the monkish orders. They 
believe that they alone are in the right path of salvation, and 
are sure that the rest of their Church is in danger of perdi- 
tion and on the precipice of eternal ruin ; practically, their 
order is their Church, out of which there is no salvation ; all 
their actions seem to be performed for the glory and extension 
of their religious institution. The means they use to this 
end are many ; each order, nay, each monastery, has its own 
peculiar superstitions by which they endeavour to attract the 
ignorant crowd and obtain its favour. Each order has its 
peculiar sanctuaries, its holy shrines to which pilgrimages are 
performed; each has its own miraculous images and medals; 
each praises its own holy wares, and depreciates those of the 
rest ; each endeavours to acquire an ascendancy in the vulgar 
mind. And when one order has acquired an influence superior to 
the rest, they palm off their peculiar superstitions on the whole 
Church, which they can easily effect by their emissaries, be- 
cause they have their ramifications and affiliated houses in all 
countries. If you offend one member of a religious order, you 
have all the monks of that order against you. Each order is 
an imperium in imperio, Now, the infallible Church fosters 
the establishment of religious orders ; she sanctions their ex- 
emptions, privileges, peculiarities and superstitions, and thus 
fosters hatreds and animosities. Here, again, I affirm that 
there exists more brotherly love and union among the differ- 
ent Protestant denominations than among the religious 
orders of the Church of Rome. 

Roman Catholics boast much, as against Protestants, 
of their unity in doctrine. Now, we affirm that there are 
great divisions between their different schools of divinity. 
In regard to Church-government and the infallibility of the 



infallibility Not the Principle of Unity. 171 

pope, the Gallican school of theologians was bitterly oppos 
e^, before the Vatican council, to the Etonian or Ultramon- 
tane school. • The whole Church was divided into these two 
schools. The Roman school condemned the Galilean doctrine 
as proxima hceresi, and defended their own as proxima fidei; 
and they succeeded in stamping it out in the Vatican coun- 
cil w:here the personal infallibility of the pope was declared. 
Since that time, the minimizers and maximizers of the 
meaning of the term ex cathedra and of ex cathedra defini- 
tions take the place of the former Galileans and Ultramon- 
tanes, and will surely disturb the doctrinal peace and 
endanger the frail unity of the Church. In regard to grace 
and predestination, again, there are the schools of the 
Augustinians, Molinists, and Thomists, which differ widely 
from each other, and caused, for centuries, the greatest excite- 
ment and division in the Church of Rome. At one time the 
Bull was ready, but never issued, declaring ex cathedra the 
Thomist doctrine as defide, and condemning the doctrine of 
the Molinists or Jesuits. Yet, the papacy afterwards inflicted 
a severe blow on the Thomist doctrine by condemning the 
Aiigustinus of Jansenius. There was a time when both 
parties were so much embittered against each other, that 
they denounced one another as heretics. The pope had to imr 
pose silence on both parties. The Molinists condemned the 
Thomist doctrine as bordering closely on Calvinism ; while 
the Thomists denounced the doctrine of their opponents as 
savouring of Pelagianism. These disputes are still in the 
Church and cause divisions among theologians. Hot disputes 
exist in regard to moral casuistry. There are the Eigorists, 
Probabiliorists, Probabilists, and Laxists. There was scarcely 
a point of practice in which theologians and fathers confes- 
sors were agreed, and this must certainlv have caused the 



172 Roman Catholicism. 

greatest perplexity in tlie consciences of the people. It was 
then declared by the pope that one may safely follow the 
works of Alfonso Liguori. But even this decree has not 
settled the controversies in regard to moral theology. The 
Laxists ex iwofesso have been condemned, but the other 
schools still exist and attack each other vehemently, so that 
one father confessor grants absolution where another would 
absolutely refuse it^ because he belongs to a different school. 
Notwithstanding the outward doctrinal ti'anqu] Hi ty on the 
surface of the Church of B>ome, there is at present an inter- 
nal fermentation going on in the minds of her intelligent 
members, which, in course of time, must burst out and set 
the house on fire. They vaunt their unity, but let them 
reflect that that unity is brought about by external pressure. 
They themselves must be conscious that their Church does 
aot enjoy ref^l internal peace and unity. The differences 
among evangelical Protestants in doctrinal points are not 
greater than they are among Roman Catholics, and they have 
therefore nothing to boast of as against Protestants. 



LECTUEE IV. 

PERNICIOUS INFLUENCE OF THE INFALLIBILITY- 
DOCTRINE ON THE OFFICE OF THE CHURCH 
AS WITNESS-BEARER, 

THE system of ecclesiastical infallibility exerts, above all, 
the most pernicious influence on the office of the Church as 
witness-bearer to the truths which God has revealed to her. 
It not only distorts and obsciu?es them, but adds to the 
deposit of faith the traditions of men. 

We have seen, in the first part of this course of lectures, 
in what sense the Church as a living and continuous society 
bears witness to the revealed truths of God, and reviewed 
the arguments by which Koman Catholics endeavour to 
establish the necessity of infallibility for the due performance 
of this office. Let us now pass from the theory to the reality 
and see what difficulties they actually encounter in the 
witness-bearing of their Church. 

They teach that their Church is the infallible living 
witness through an uninterrupted chain of traditional links ; 
that she existed anterior to, and independent of, written 
documents ; that, in fact, these have no essential value, since 
she could bear witness without them. Although the Scrip- 
tures and the works of the fathers should perish, the Church 
would, according to their system, be just as trustworthy a 
witness without them as she was before with them. A 
number of difficulties arise here which appear to be insur- 
mountable. 



174 Roman Catholicism. 

In the first place, in order to be a true traditional witness, 
the present episcopal body is bound to show its unbroken 
succession from the Apostles through all succeeding links. 
They cannot do it ; for to prove it by oral tradition would 
be begging the question. 

One demand of the bishops, in whom the gift of infalli- 
bility is said to reside, is : Show us your credentials ; prove 
that you are the successors of the Apostles in a continuous 
chain. They are bound to prove this Apostolical succession, 
and that with infallihility. They must prove also that the 
bishops, and particularly all the popes, who form the grand 
links in the chain of succession, were baptized and rightly 
ordained. If one link in the chain be made of a bishop who 
was not baptized, or not validly ordained, the whole chain 
must fall to pieces like a rope of sand. They must, moreover, 
be certain which pope was the rightful bishop of Rome in 
those times when there were several claimants to the pope- 
dom ; for if there were a usurper in the papal chair, all his 
acts, as head of the Church, would be null and void; and it 
would not be a chain which God has linked together. The 
truth and legitimacy of this succession should be patent to 
all men. They have recourse to tradition to prove it ; but 
do they prove it % Can they prove it ? 

They say, it is in the nature of every society to bear testi- 
mony of itself, of its origin, constitution and identity. We 
answer that, in order to prove the identity of a society its 
history must be known. And you can never acquire this 
knowledge, especially if the society be of ancient date, by 
oral tradition only ; there never existed such an instance. 
How then will the Church of Rome establish her identity ? 
According to her system, which claims entire independence 
of wrUten documents, as being the living witness of tho 



Perniciousness of Infallibility-Doctrine, 175 

faith once delivered to the saints, she must require her mem- 
bers to believe that she is the identical Church of Christ, 
merely because she says so; she must, likewise, require them 
to believe in her authority merely because she claims to be 
infallible. In other words, she must be infallible because 
she is the living witness; and she is the living witness be- 
cause she knows tljis with infallibility. Where is here their 
boasted logic % 

They reply to our reasoning that their theory of the Church 
being a living witness by means of traditional links does not 
exclude written documents ; but, on the contrary, that she ad- 
mits them, and renders them authoritative by her testimony, 
and that these same documents, taken as mere historical 
evidence, serve conclusively to prove her identity. They 
invite us to compare their Church in her present state with 
the Bible, in order to recognize her identity with the Apos- 
tolical Chui'ch; to compare her teachings with the writings 
of the fathers and other ecclesiastical authors, in order that 
we may see her continued and uninterrupted identity in all 
ages, both internally and externally. 

It is evident that in thus reasoning they contradict their 
system. For, if all the doctrines had to be written down, so 
as to establish the identity of the Church, what is the use of 
oral tradition at all ? The Church, in that case, can only 
teach that which is written down, otherwise the members 
cannot be certain that what she teaches is true. If, by 
written documents only, whether of human or divine autho- 
rity, it matters not — ^we can and must know whether the 
bishops, either separately or as a body, teach true doctrine, 
then all that has to be taught must have been written down 
by the founders of the ChwPch. Every subsequent written 
document must contain nothing more than is contained in 



176 Roman Catholicism, 

Scripture; otherwise they could not prove by it the identity 
of the Church. Hence, Roman Catholics, being compelled to 
admit that by written documents only the identity of their 
Church as a true witness of divine revelation can be satis- 
factorily proved, must admit also that the only doctrines of 
Christianity to be taught and preached since the times of the 
Apostles must be contained in sacred Scripture, and that all 
doctrines not contained therein cannot, with any show of 
reason, be held and believed as doctrines of Christ, but must 
be considered as so many innovations. Here, then, however 
reluctantly, they are constrained to come back to the Pro- 
testant principle — the Bible alone as the only rule of faith. 

The Koman Catholic system is contrary to the nature of 
things; hence they themselves constantly contradict it. If 
their independence of the Bible and other written documents 
were reliable, why did they write the doctrines down % Why 
do they constantly appeal only to written documents when 
they wish to prove any of their tenets % Does this not show 
conclusively that the deposituTYi of faith can only be preserv- 
ed by the certain and safe means of written documents, and 
not in the vague and uncertain channel of the oral witness- 
bearing of the Church ? 

When the Church of Rome gives a dogmatic definition or 
decree about any doctrinal point, she does not pretend to 
establish a new doctrine, but merely declares that such 
and such a doctrine is contained in the depositum she has 
received from Christ. And this depositum they believe to 
be the written and unwritten Word of God. The unwritten 
word, too, has been written down, and is contained in the 
fathers and other ecclesiastical writers. The depositum, 
therefore, in which the living authority declares a doctrine 
to be contained, is contained in written documents. Hence. 



Perniciousness of Infallibility-Doctrine, 177 

by tradition we have to understand, not the oral living tra- 
ditional links, but the representative ecclesiastical writers of 
every age. 

Moreover, Roman Catholics teach that the Church, in 
drawing from this depositum is not inspired, but assisted by 
the Holy Ghost. Assistance presupposes that the ordinary 
means are employed of finding out the truth. Of course, 
without such employment there would be no assistance. 
It is to be supposed that these means lie within the reach of 
possibility, and that their use is not a superhuman task. 

The Roman Catholic bishops, therefore, before they can 
expect the assistance of the Holy Ghost, iam.^t first and fore- 
most act the part of theologians. They must thoroughly study 
the deposit of faith. ISTow are we sure that they do so before 
giving a decree or definition '? History and experience sug- 
gest that bishops are not always the most learned and indus- 
trious of men. We cannot say that, in many cases, favouritism 
has had no share or influence in their appointment ; nor are 
intrigues altogether out of the question. We think that 
aptitude for government is generally considered a more 
suitable qualification for the bishopric than theological 
learning and acquirements. It would appear that inquisitive 
men and profound scholars are seldom raised to the episcopal 
dignity ; on the contrary, it is men, from whose disposition 
to enquire nothing has to be feared, who are usually elevated 
to that responsible position. It has also to be considered 
that the bishops, instead of studying theology, have quite 
enough to occupy them in attending to the government of 
their dioceses ; and not a few of them love the otium cum 
dignitate. 

The fact is that the episcopal body, before giving a dog- 
matic decision, before saying placet, never prosecutes a 

12 



178 Roman Catholicism. 

thorough study of the question. Now, how can they, accord- 
ing to their own theory, expect the assistance of the Holy 
Ghost, if they do not work ? Does assistance not, it may be 
added, involve the supposition of work? In all general 
councils, the time is too limited for a searching investigation 
and discussion of questions. 

Whence it follows that the decrees of general councils and 
the unanimous belief of the ecclesia dispersa can only teach 
us what the episcopal body for the time being holds and be- 
lieves ; but they render us, by no means, certain that their 
decrees and decisions are consistent with the depositumoi id^ith.. 
Practically, then, they take for granted that the present 
living traditional link holds exactly the doctrines which 
every one of the preceding links held up to the time of the 
Apostles. Theoretically, they hold that a thorough examin- 
ation is required of the written documents containing the 
Church's doctrines ; that only then may they expect the as- 
sistance of the Holy Ghost j and that, after a mature study of 
these documents, with the help of God's Spirit, they are able 
to render the members of the Church infallibly certain that 
such and such a doctrine is contained in Scripture or in the 
totum of the representative ecclesiastical writers — the fathers 
and doctors of the Church. Is there not a palpable contra- 
diction here between theory and practice % 

They reply that each bishop has his trustworthy and 
learned divines who study, in his stead, the difficult points 
of controverted questions and give him their well-matured 
decision ; that each council, too, employs the most eminent 
theologians that are to be found in the Church, who are well 
versed in sacred Scripture and in the whole range of written 
tradition ; and that these make a thorough study of the points 
in dispute and enligiiten the bishops. 



Perniciousness of Infallibility'Doctrine, 179 

Here we have another contradiction of their system in its 
practical working. To the labours of the bishops, not to the 
study of their theologians, was promised the assistance of the 
Holy Ghost. It depends on the decision of the bishops whether 
it shall be received as a dogma that such and such a doctrine 
is contained in the depositv/m of faith. If the bishops, after 
the labours and conclusions of their theologians, declare 
that it is taught in Scripture and tradition, they appear to 
give this decision, because they believe in the results of the 
study of their divines. And if they do not wish to have a 
blind belief in the labours of their fallible inferiors, they 
must make a careful revision and examination of them. 
How can they do this without the knowledge, for themselves 
and by themselves, of the contents of sacred Scripture and the 
whole range of tradition so far, at least, as regards the par- 
ticular points in question? Thus, while they think and 
maintain that their decisions in regard to controverted points 
are based on and contained in the deposit of faith, they are, 
in reality, based on the studies of fallible men, not even be- 
longing to the teaching body — of men who have no vote in 
the Church. 

And let me ask, who are these theologians whom the 
bishops employ as their assistants and guides 1 They may 
be learned and well-meaning men, yet they are determined 
not to discuss the doctrines which the episcopal body at pre- 
sent holds, but to take them as true and to defend them at 
any cost. This is the basis of their trustworthiness, and of 
the reliance the bishops place in them ; they are men who 
view things in an undisguised party spirit and are utterly 
destitute of impartiality. As it is impossible for them to 
study the doctrine in question through the whole range of sacred 
Scripture and tradition, they one-sidedly search for those 



180 Roman Catholicis^n. 

passages and texts which seem to favour their thesis. 
Party spirit will twist and turn anything to its advan- 
tage, and it is astonishing how far it can venture in this 
direction. 

What is the process by which the Church draws the pre- 
cious treasure of divine revelation from tradition — the mine 
of antiquity — and imparts it to her hungry children, even 
without their seeking it % Do all her priests read and under- 
stand all the holy fathers, the decrees of councils, &c., &c. % 
Not one in a thousand has ever read, in the originals, half a 
dozen of the fathers. How could they do it *? A great 
amount of criticism is required to distinguish the genuine 
and true from the false and erroneous. Is it not a well- 
known fact that persons who are always on the defensive and 
are never allowed seriously to discuss existing doctrines are 
very bad critics 1 Do men who repose quietly on the pillow 
oi present tranquillity care much to be disturbed by enquiries 
into the teaching of the past J 

Even if the bishops and theologians had the desire to ar- 
rive at judicial conclusions from the study of written tradi- 
tion, they could not do it j it would be a superhuman task. 
Tradition comprises so many writings of fathers and 
doctors, acts of councils both general and particular, and 
other documents, that it is utterly impossible for any man 
even to read them with an ordinary degree of attention and 
care. 

The difficulty of understanding them is still greater. It 
requires a knowledge of the original languages, Oriental, 
Latin, and Greek. And this knowledge must not be a super- 
ficial one ] it requires a critical acquaintance with all the 
changes a language undergoes when transferred from one class 
oi* objects to another, and in passing from one generation to 



Perniciousness of Infallibility-Doctrine. 181 

another, from one country to another, from being a living 
to becoming a dead language. Thus, classical Latin and 
Greek are vastly different from ecclesiastical Latin and 
Greek. So African Latin differs from that spoken in Italy, 
and this again from French, or Spanish, or German Latin. 
The Latin of the Roman empire is different from the Latin 
of the middle ages ; the Latin of the fathers differs from the 
Latin of the schoolmen. The same changes must be considered 
in reference to the Oriental and Greek languages. 

The difficulty increases, if you take into consideration that 
all these writers have their peculiar philosophical views. A 
thorough knowledge, therefore, of these is an essential requis- 
ite for rightly understanding and duly appreciating their 
dicta. The nature, also, of the doctrines they refuted, the 
circumstances of times, places, and persons, must all be pro- 
perly and thoroughly appraised. 

Who does not see that it is utterly impossible for any 
ordinary human being, during the short period of his mortal 
life, and the very few years in which his understanding is 
sufficiently matured for such a task, to acquire an adequate 
knowledge of all this % An impartial thinker must, there- 
fore, come to the conclusion that a serious and reflecting 
Koman Catholic can never arrive at the point when he is 
able to give a sufficient reason of the hope that is within him 
— a reason that would be in conformity with his system. Hence 
it is no secret that members of that Church, notwithstanding 
all their glorying and boasting about tradition, fathers, and 
councils, have as little reverence for them as for the Scriptures 
themselves and that the infallible Church is all in all. 

But let us suppose that they could acquire a correct and 
sufficient knowledge of the fathers and other branches of tra 
dition, what would they have gained! Would they be certain. 



182 Roman Catholicism. 

even in that case, of having obtained the truth ? Are they 
sure that the fathers are competent witnesses? Accord- 
ing to the Roman system, each father, individually, is fallible. 
His testimony, therefore, has only human authority, and is 
subject to all the rules of criticism to which other historians 
must submit. 

Suppose and take for granted that the fathers had no 
wilful intention to relate falsehoods and that they were 
veracious and impartial, as champions of the faith ought to 
be; let us enquire how far they are competent. Were 
they as a matter of fact able to know more than we know of 
the oral teachings of the Apostles ? We admit that those who 
heard the Apostles were competent ; but they are very few 
in number. We have only fragments of their writings, and 
so far as they are genuine, they contain nothing in addition 
to what is contained in Scripture. They are not available, 
therefore, to establish distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines 
based on the oral teaching of the Apostles. They are 
not available to settle controversies between Roman Catholics 
and Protestants. 

Those fathers whose testimony is chiefly employed by 
Roman Catholic divines in establishing their distinctive 
dogmas lived from one to four and even six hundred years 
later than the Apostles whose oral teaching they are supposed 
to report. But they were removed by generations from the 
Apostolic age, and of course, could have no personal know- 
ledge of what the Apostles preached, except by their writings. 

They reply that a personal knowledge is not required, that 
it is sufficient if they relate to us what claimed universal or 
catholic consent during their times. This, of course, they do. 
Now, what received universal assent in ages so near the Apos- 
tolical times is more satisfactorily gathered from the Apostles 



Perniciousness of Injallihility'Doctrine. 183 

themselves. Directly^ then, they bear testimony to the 
doctrine of the Catholic Church, during their times, and 
indirectly to the teaching of the Apostles. 

"We answer that we can scarcely suppose that each father 
knew what all the Christian churches held and believed, and 
not knowing this, he cannot be a witness for the Catholic 
doctrine. Intercommunication between the different Churches 
in those times was exceedingly difficult. They were not 
times of peace, but of convulsion. The Roman empire 
was crumbling to pieces, and Barbarians were' invading it 
from the North, East, and South. As the art of printing had 
not yet been discovered, writings were comparatively scarce. 
How then could these fathers know the universal consent of 
all Churches % If they expressly tell us, sometimes, that 
such and such a doctrine is held by all Churches, may they 
not have been deceived? The limits of their catholicity 
are sometimes very narrow. Thus the African fathers say 
that a doctrine is catholic, if they find it in Africa and on 
the opposite shores of Italy, the Oriental fathers hold a doc- 
trine to be catholic, if they find it in the East, &c., <fec. For 
these reasons it appears very doubtful whether one branch 
of the Church knew what the other branches held. How 
much more doubtful, then, must it appear that the indi- 
viduals, whose writings have come down to us, knew exactly 
what the whole universal Church held as Apostolical doctrines] 

But let us concede that every branch of the Church knew 
what all the other Churches believed and practised, and that 
the testimony of the fathers proves a universal consent in 
faith and practice; this would give us nothing more than a 
pwhahility that the doctrines and usages they report came 
from the Apostles ; for we know that the seeds of error were 
very early scattered amongst the professors of Christianity. 



184 Roman Catholicism. 

Uninspired men, although professing a holy life, half-con- 
verted philosophers, worldly-minded Christians, engrafted 
errors very early upon the Christian vine. The testimony 
of these witnesses, then, either in relation to what the 
Apostles preached, or as to what the universal Church be- 
lieved and practised, is not an adequate test of truth — the 
witnesses not being competent to know the truth of what 
they attest. 

In the next place, their testimony is not precise and clear. 
If you consider the scope of their writings, they are often 
made to say what they never meant. Isolated passages may 
be cited to prove anything ; texts which are quoted to estab- 
lish Roman Catholic doctrines are often most obscure, and 
sometimes incomprehensible ; meanings are sometimes given 
to words which they never were intended to convey. Now, 
a testimony which is not simple, precise, clear and indisput- 
able, cannot be relied upon. Of this nature are the greater 
part of the texts from the early fathers quoted by Koman 
Catholic theologians. 

Doubt, again, arises with regard to the matter deposed, 
when witnesses of equal competency and credibility clash 
with each other. How often does the testimony of one 
father contradict that of another. How often do contempor- 
ary fathers disagree with each other in regard to the universal 
consent to which they appeal. There were violent conten- 
tions in the Church during the centuries in which these 
fathers lived; all appealed to the universal consent; all 
thought they had this universal consent in their favour. 
Whose testimony shall we accept ? Shall we believe the 
testimony of one father in preference to another, while 
this other is equally competent? Shall we believe the 
testimony of those whom the Church of Ilomt has digni^ed 
a^s fathers, in preference to theit opponents ? 



Perniciousness of Infallibility'Doctrine. 185 

But the doubt in regard to the truth of their testimony is 
still further increased, if we consider that one and the same 
father may contradict his own testimony in his own writings. 
There are many instances where this is the case ; is then any 
part of the testimony of such a witness reliable % 

Let us give due honor and credit to the fathers. But 
their writings can only have value for us in so far as they are 
based on the writings of the Apostles and are contained there- 
in. When they are made to be witnesses of the oral teach- 
ings of the Apostles which are not contained in sacred 
Scripture, they are valueless. Each one taken separately is 
a fallible witness ; how then can their united testimony be 
infallible, even if we could secure it % 



LECTUEE V. 

TEM DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT A NECESSARY CON- 
SEQUENCE OF THE INFALLIBILITY -THEORY. 

WE saw in our last lecture that the Church of Rome is 
not the infallible witness of the revealed truths of 
Christ, because of the impossibility of applying her famous 
rule — quod semper, ubique, et ab omnibus creditum est, to her 
decrees and definitions. This application would involve the 
vast labour of seeking and finding the dogmas she defines 
and issues, in the history and traditions of the Church, from 
the days of the Apostles, through all succeeding generations. 
As they themselves see the difficulty of the task, they have 
practically given it up ; and, for the most part, do not 
even attempt it. They have thrown ofi* the burden of prov- 
ing their distinctive tenets by arguments drawn from the 
depositum of faith which they pretend to guard, as too heavy 
for their shoulders, and content themselves with leaning 
altogether on the infallible authority of their Church. 

But in order to show the reasonableness of their belief in 
the present teaching of their Church they have betaken 
themselves to the doctrine of development or dogmatic evolu- 
tion. They compare the Word of God to a seed. As the 
seed contains within itself the tree with its branches, flowers, 
and fruit, so also God's Word, originally simple, hid- 
den, and mysterious, comprises within itself the manifold. 



Development a Consequence of Infallibility, 187 

teaching of the infallible Church throughout all ages. Besides 
the ex2)licit belief and teaching of the Church in each tradi- 
tional link, they admit that there are also a whole body of 
implicit doctrines which require to be developed by the 
Spirit of God guiding the Church and leading her into all 
truth. In a word, they teach that the faith, primitively 
implicit, must become explicit ; that it must not be supposed 
that the truth is incapable of progression, or that the teaching 
of the Church must remain stationary and stereotyped. 

They imagine that this doctrine of development wonderfully 
assists them in defending the doctrines defined by their 
Church, in every age. Everything in nature and society, in 
the sciences and arts, proclaims the doctrine of development ; 
why should the Church, in her faith and practice, be exempt 
from this universal law of evolution 1 They pity us poor 
Protestants as obscurantists and retrograding malcontents 
because we go back to the Old Bible and refuse to make any 
progress in our dogmatic teaching. They tell us that the 
Reformation not only stopped the car of progress, but drove 
it back to the primitive times of Christianity. By this 
doctrine of development they hope to eliminate the difficul- 
ties of their dogmatic teaching and to cover deficiencies 
in their arguments. No doubt, it pleases and attracts their 
members and retains many within the bosom of the Church. 

The learned Dr. Newman has written a very profound and 
philosophical book on the doctrine of development, in its 
manifold relations. It is much esteemed by Roman divines 
and forms part of their standard theological literature. I 
read it, many years ago, and regret that I have not a copy at 
hand for present quotation. I must content myself with the 
remarks on development he makes in his " Reply to Mr. 
Gladstone's Expostulation,'^ He says (p. 70) : 



188 Roman Catholicism. 

" For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of 
the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence ; 
but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved 
by it ; historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or 
less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines — often nearly 
the whole way ; sometimes it goes only so far as to point in 
their direction ; sometimes there is only an absence of 
evidence for a conclusion contrary to them ; nay, sometimes 
there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary 
conclusion, which has to be explained : in all cases there is 
a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the 
Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only 
because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a 
Catholic. It is the Church's use of History in which the 
Catholic believes ; and he uses other informants also, Scrip- 
ture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense, or cpftdvrjjjia and a 
subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin is a divine 
gift. There is nothing of bondage or * renunciation of 
mental freedom,' in this view, any more than in the converts 
of the Apostles believing what the Apostles might preach to 
them or teach them out of Scripture." 

" What has been said of History in relation to the formal 
definitions of the Church applies also to the exercise of ratio- 
cination. Our logical powers, too, being a gift from God, 
may claim to have theii information respected ; and Protest- 
ants sometimes accuse our theologians, for instance, the 
mediaeval school men, of having used them in divine matters 
a little too freely. But it has ever been our teaching and our 
protest, that, as there are doctrines which lie beyond the 
direct evidence of history, so there are doctrines which 
transcend the discoveries of reason ; and, after all, whether 
they are more or less recommended to us by the one infor- 



Development a Coftsequence of Infallibility, 189 

mant or the other, in all cases the immediate motive in the 
mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they 
are proved to him by reason or by history, but because 
Revelation has declared them by means of that high eccle- 
siastical magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." 

" What has been said also applies to those other truths, 
with which ratiocination has morejto do than history, which 
are sometimes developments of Christian doctrine — truths 
which are not upon the surface of the Apostolic depositum, 
that is, the legacy of Revelation, — but which from time to 
time are brought into form by theologians, and sometimes 
have been proposed to the faithful, by the Church, as direct 
objects of faith. No Catholic would hold that they ought to 
be logically deduced in their fulness and exactness from the 
belief of the first centuries, but only this, that on the 
assumption of the infallibility of the Church (which will over- 
come every objection except a contradiction in thought) there 
is nothing greatly to try the reason in such difficulties as occur 
in reconciling those evolved doctrines with the teaching of 
fche ancient fathers ; such development being evidently the 
new form, explanation, transformation, or carrying out of 
what in substance was held from the first, what the Apos- 
tles said, but have not recorded in writing, or would neces- 
sarily have said under our circumstances, or if they had 
been asked, or in view of certain uprisings of error, and in 
that sense really portions of the legacy of truth, of which the 
Church, in all her members, but especially in her hierarchy, 
is the divinely appointed trustee." 

" Such an evolution of doctrine has been, as I would main- 
tain, a law of the Church's teaching from the earliest times, 
and in nothing is her title of ' semper eadem' more remark- 
ably Uliistrated than in the correspondence of her ancient 



190 Roman Catholicism. 

and modern exhibition of it. As to the ecclesiastical acts of 
1854 and 1870, I think, with Mr. Gladstone, that the prin- 
ciple of doctrinal development, and that of authority, have 
never, in the proceedings of the Church, been so freely and 
largely used as in the definitions then promulgated to the faith- 
ful; but I deny that at either time the testimony of history 
was repudiated or perverted. The utmost that can be fairly 
said by an opponent against the theological decisions of those*^ 
years is, that antecedently to the event it might appear that 
there were no sufficient historical grounds in behalf of either 
of them — I do not mean for a personal belief in either — but 
for the purpose of converting a doctrine long existing in the 
Church into a dogma, and making it a portion of the Catholic 
creed. This adverse anticipation was proved to be a mistake 
by the fact of the definition being made." 

I have quoted this long passage both because it shows to 
us how far the Church's infallible magisterium extends and 
demands the assent of the faithful, as also because it gives 
us some insight into the Roman doctrine of dogmatic evolu- 
tion. Plausible as this doctrine may appear at first sight, 
we confess that there seems no reason that should induce us to 
embrace it. 

In the first place it pre-su2:)poses the infallibility of the Church 
otherwise how could men be required, under pain of damna- 
tion, to give their assent to these developed dogmas if the 
Church that evolves and decrees them as articles of faith be 
not endowed with infallibility % On the other hand again, 
we are told that the doctrine of ecclesiastical, especially papal, 
infallibility is a result of this dogmatic development. Is 
there not here a palpable contradiction 1 As the doctrine of 
infallibility does not possess prima facie evidence, how, in 
the name of truth, can men ever acquire a convincing cer* 



Development a Consequence of Infallibility. 191 

tainty that the Church and the pope are infallible % We 
have seen that the ordinary depositum, namely, Scripture 
and tradition, do not prove it, and now we are informed that 
development, the supplement of this depositum, does not 
prove, but postulate it. 

Again, this system of development contradicts their rule 
of faith. They teach that the Church can decree and define 
nothing but what is contained in Scripture and tradition. 
Consequently no additions can be made, nor may any previous 
dogma be amplified ; the definitions and decrees must not 
exceed the depositum of Scripture and tradition. But what 
do we see ? The doctrine of development is invoked in justi- 
fication of those very dogmas which we look upon as additions, 
amplifications, and excesses. Is implicit faith synonymous 
with additional or amplified faith ? 

Hence also this development system is a contradiction of 
their famous rule of catholicity, quod semper, uhique et ah 
omnibus creditum est. For, what is not expressed in Scrip- 
ture or tradition, what is not known, nor even dreamt of, 
cannot be believed. Belief supposes knowledge. Let them 
not say that it was implicitly known, consequently implicitly 
believed. The rule speaks of a belief that is manifested, and 
only as such can it become a criterion of faith. How can the 
implicit faith of past ages be a rule for any one by which he 
may be enabled to find out the Catholic faith 1 Besides, how 
can additions and amplifications come within the category of 
this rule % 

Discarding thus the ancient Catholic rule of faith, this 
theory of development has become the source of multiplying 
dogmas ad infinitwm. We find that for the last few centuries 
they have based nearly all the dogmatic definitions they* 
allowed themselves to make upon this transition from tho 



192 Roman Catholicism. 

implicit to the explicit faith. They have dispensed with en- 
quiry into the documents of antiquity in order to justify their 
innovations. The opinions of some old theologians which 
enter into the frame- work of their ideas are eagerly seized 
upon and considered as germs of the implicit faith. These 
they nurse and work out until they are dovetailed into their 
whole system, and exert their influence on the religious life 
of the Church. And when the development has reached this 
point, it is approved by the pope and the bishops, and pro- 
claimed to the world as a new dogma of explicit faith. 

We must bear in mind that the progress of development 
does not go on throughout the whole body of the Church, but 
only in the priesthood; the laity have no part in it; and 
even among the priests only the scholm theologorum are the 
working bees. They exert an immense influence on the 
whole doctrinal system ; in a certain sense they are the soul 
of the teaching body. They wield the weapons of defense, 
make researches into the opinions of the fathers and doctors 
of the Church, formulate and systematize the whole body of 
Roman doctrine. They have a domain of their own into 
which only the initiated may advance and progress; their 
nomenclature, phraseology and language cannot be understood 
by any but themselves. 

Hence a twofold phenomenon presents itself in the Roman 
Catholic Church which greatly astonishes outsiders. The 
first is, that the belief and practice of the masses often difier 
considerably from the views of their divines and school men. 
No wonder; there is a gulf between them. Hence the 
attacks of Protestants on popular Romanism are looked upon 
by Roman Catholic theologians and the champions of their 
faith as so many calumnies against their Church, so many 
wicked maniiestations ot Protestant isjnorance and bi;>;otry. 



Development a Consequence of Infallihiliiy, 193 

On this account the Protestant labours under great disad- 
vantages when he enters into the field against this Church. 
If he attacks the Romanism which presents itself to him, 
and which he daily perceives living in the masses, they tell 
him that he fights a phantom of his own creation, and de- 
gi-ades himself by slandering their Church. If he criticises 
and refutes their doctrines as contained in the creeds, defi- 
nitions, and decrees of councils and popes, they cry out that 
he does not understand them, that he does not know even 
the first rudiments of the phraseology, language, and method 
of the scholce iheologoriimy which alone contain the key to 
their right understanding. And if he attacks the teaching 
the scholce, they will inform him that he shoots beyond the 
mark, that the teaching of the scholm is not exactly the 
Church's magisterium, that if he wants to attack the Church, 
he must go to creeds and councils. In fact, the Church of 
Rome is too slippery for an honest Protestant. 

The second phenomenon is, that the Roman Catholic laity 
live in blissful ignorance of what is going on in the scholce, 
and of what new dogmas are in process of development and 
definition by the pope and the bishops. They may awake 
some fine morning with a new dogma saddled on their patient 
consciences, which they are commanded to believe under 
pain of excommunication and damnation. How often during 
his life-time may the honest layman be required to abandon 
cherished opinions for new dogmatic definitions added to his 
former creed. Twice in our times, within the short period 
of sixteen years, has he been obliged to ^exercise his faith by 
receiving new dogmas, first, that of the immaculate concep- 
tion, and shortly after, that of papal infallibility. 

As the working of this system of development is exclusive- 
ly in the hands of the priests, it is but natural to expect that 

13 



194 Roman Catholicism, 

siicli doctrines are principally developed which favour their 
caste. It was by this method of procedure that the doctrine 
of a sacrificing priesthood, with its many kindred dogmas, 
was developed ; in a similar manner the papacy had its rise and 
took firm root in Western Christendom. 

From what we have said it must not be inferred that we 
are altogether opposed to development ; nay, we admit it, but 
in a far different sense from that of the Roman system. I cannot 
explain, better my meaning than in the words of the learned 
Abbe Michaud, the great champion of old Catholicism, in an 
article in the Hartford Churchman (vol. xxxi., No. 16) : — 

"It is evident that this pretended transition from the 
implicit to the explicit faith is nothing else but the complete 
confusion of theology and of the faith, to the detriment of the 
latter especially. This Romish theory is false and it 
resembles in no respect the notion of progress in the faith, 
such as St. Vincent of Lerins explained it according to the 
doctrine received in the East and West, before the great 
separation of the ninth century It is to this ancient and 
really catholic notion of the true development that we must 
return. In our work entitled : ' How the Roman Church is 
no longer the Catholic Church,^ we have explained at length, 
and (we believe) as clearly as possible, what Vincent of 
Lerins' idea was. The Church, at that epoch, did not yet 
know the famous theory of the transition from the implicit 
to the explicit. It admitted no progress in the objective faith 
by a material addition to the revealed verities ; it only 
admitted the progress in the subjective faith, by progress 
in the subjective knowledge of the dogmas. Assuredly, this 
progress in the subjective knowledge of the dogmas placed 
them in a greater light, and in this regard there was also 
progress in the objective faith. But, evidently, this progress 



Developme7it a Consequence of Infallibility, 195 

in the objective faith was neither a material alteration nor a 
numerical amplification of the truths revealed by Jesus 
Christ and preserved in the Universal Church ; this progress 
consisted only in this, that the understanding became more 
enlightened, and thus comprehended better the breadth and 
depth of these truths. It had nothing to do with adding one 
or several propositions to the written catalogue of the truths 
of the faith ; it was concerned only with shedding a fuller 
and stronger light in the souls of the faithful, a light leaving 
the truths of the faith absolutely the same, neither changing 
nor increasing at all, but rendering thenx more visible by an 
augmentation of individual light. It had nothing to do with 
seeing the revealed truths more numerous than in the past ; 
the question was merely to see them better enlightened and 
more radiant." 

"Understood in this sense, we admit dogmatic development, 
as our fathers of the first centuries did. This development, 
which difiers essentially from the Romish theory, is not at all 
dangerous, because it is founded upon religious and philoso- 
phical truth. While leaving to each one the fullest liberty 
in the territory of theology, it prevents arbitrariness in the 
faith, which always remains what it is, as a deposit which 
one can neither diminish nor augment, but which one can 
always irradiate by means of the sun of science, so as con- 
tinually to see better what it contains." 

" Therefore, just as the false dogmatic development is based 
upon the confusion of the faith and theology, so the true 
dogmatic development is based upon their distinction and 
upon the impossibility of transforming the latter into the 
former. With the first, bad theology becomes likewise bad 
faith, and we see it only too much in the Roman Church, 
where the true faith is as rare as true theology. With the 



196 Roman Catholicism, 

second, bad theology is only bad theology ; k can hold the 
true faith in external obscurity, but it cannot destroy or 
corrupt it intrinsically. The essences of things are always 
preserved on both sides, in this sense. The true faith always 
remains the true faith, even when it is badly explained 
theologically." 

We agree with Abb6 Michaud's views, in general ; we 
observe only that we have no need of the rule of St. Vincent 
of Lerins, in order to find out the Catholic faith. We can 
find no other rule of true catholicity than the Bible alone. 
To this standard let us apply the theory of subjective develop- 
mentj so beautifully explained by the learned Old Catholic 
Abbe. 



LECTURE VI. 

SACERDOTALISM : ITS CONNECTION WITH THE IN^ 
FALLIBILITY-SYSTEM. 

THEE-E is a doctrine pervading the Clmrcli of Rome which 
is the source of the system of Church-infallibility and 
papal authority ; a doctrine enslaving the laity and destroying 
their rights ; a doctrine poisoning the current of all spiritual 
life ; a doctrine leading to superstition, and even to idolatry : 
in a word, a doctrine disturbing the purity of the gospel and 
undermining the simple structure of Christianity. This 
doctrine is not peculiar to the Church of Rome ; it existed 
before the great schism between the East and West, in the 
ninth century ; all the Eastern Churches are corrupted by it, 
and alas 1 we find even Protestant ministers professing to 
teach the pure gospel of Christ tainted with it. But although 
others, besides Rome, hold this baneful doctrine, in the 
Roman Church alone has it obtained its full development and 
finally culminated in hierarchical and even papal infallibility. 

I mean sacerdotalism or pries tism — the doctrine that the 
Christian ministry is a real priesthood. What does this 
imply 1 

In the first place, the idea of mediatorship between God 
and man underlies all the offices of the priesthood. The 
priest not only teaches with authority from on high, but also 
acts for and on behalf of the people, in order to obtain for 
them God's mercy and favour. The Roman Catholic priest 
is believed to stand between the people and God. And if 



198 Roman Catholicism. 

we tell them that there is but " one mediator between God 
and man, the man Christ Jesus," they agree that Christ is 
the only true and invisible mediator, but they add that the 
Church, as a visible body, requires visible mediators, and 
that her priests fill this office inasmuch ^s they personify 
Christ — agunt personam Christi — act in His stead and as His 
visible vice-gerents. And if we demand proof of these asser- 
tions, they have nothing to give us save obscure tradition and 
the teaching of their infallible Church. 

If we ask them, again, in what sense their priests are 
mediators, they inform us that their principal mediatorial 
function is to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, that is, of the Body 
and Blood of Christ, both for the living and the dead. If 
we express our astonishment at such a doctrine, by observ- 
ing that we find in Scripture that Christ offered Himself 
only once, and that " by one oblation He hath perfected for 
ever them that are sanctified ;" that this sacrifice cannot be 
repeated and that Christ Himself was the High Priest, — they 
evade and obscure the plain teaching of Scripture by subtle 
answers and distinctions that are above the understanding of 
the people, and are therefore not calculated to remove erro- 
neous impressions from the mind. 

They answer : True, Christ offered Himself only once, but 
that was in a bloody manner ; He is offered on our altars as 
an unbloody sacrifice — sacrificium incruentum — His sacrifice 
is not repeated. He does not often suffer nor often die on the 
altars, but He continues there to offer to His eternal Father 
the sufferings and death He once underwent on the cross. 
His very presence on our altars is a continual sacrifice here 
on earth, as His sitting on the right hand of God is a con- 
tinual sacrifice in Heaven. Nor is there really any other 
priest but Christ Himself, for the earthly minister is priest 



Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility, 199 

in so far only as lie represents Christ and acts in His person 
and name as His visible vice-gerent on earth. 

It would seem that Roman Catholics do not understand 
the real nature of a sacrifice. Scripture teaches that it con- 
sists not so much in offering anything material to God, but 
in obedience, which results in self-denial and self-surrender 
and in divesting ourselves of anything that is dear to us, 
even life itself, for God's sake and for His honour. Hence 
we are taught that Christ's sacrifice consisted in His obedi- 
ence, the highest act of which was His complete self- 
surrender, which resulted in giving His life and shedding 
His blood for His brethren, the fallen sons of Adam. And 
because His obedience culminated in the shedding of His 
blood, it obtained for us remission of sins ; for " without 
shedding ofhlood is no remissiony (Heb. ix., 22.) 

Hence the Roman Catholic distinction between the bloody 
and unbloody manner in which Christ is offered, not only 
betrays their too material conception of His sacrifice, but 
ignores also the scriptural teaching that without shedding of 
blood there can be no propitiatory sacrifice. 

Nor can they extricate themselves from this difficulty l>y 
saying that their mass has reference to the shedding of blood 
on the cross. How so ? By being a memorial of the death 
of Christ ? But a memorial is a memorial, and merely as such 
does not possess the nature of a propitiatory sacrifice. 

They assert that it has reference to Calvary because it 
is the same victim that is present on the altars and continues 
to offer Himself. We deny that the same victim is present, 
but shall not enter here into a discussion on the real presence. 
To admit such a doctrine would be interpreting Scripture 
literally with a vengeance ; it would be a palpable trans- 
gression of the rules of exegesis and a contradiction of the 



200 Roman Catholicism, 

fundamental principles of our reason. It is remarkable tiat 
while mediseval and modem councils decree the doctrine of 
the real presence, and the sacrifice of the mass, we do not 
find these two most objectionable doctrines in the canon of 
the mass, which is of ancient origin. This canon may be 
called the mass itself, and is daily used by thousands of 
priests, and may be conscientiously used as a communion 
service by Protestants who believe neither in the real pre- 
sence nor in the sacrifice of the mass. 

Where do Roman Catholics find that Christ continues to 
ofier Himself on the altars ? Nowhere in Scripture. How 
could He continue His sacrifice on the cross % Was it not 
an act ? And is not an act that is accomplished a thing of 
the past ^ The results of the sacrifice continue, but the sacri- 
fice itself was finished once and for ever. 

Besides, was it not a most painful act 1 And do not pain 
and sufiering, or at least, self-denial in some shape or other 
constitute the very nature of every sacrifice? However, 
therefore, Roman Catholics may abstract the idea of blood 
from the sacrifice of the mass, can it possibly remain a 
sacrifice, if they dissociate from it the notion of sufi'ering also ? 
Does Christ still sufier and undergo the self-denial and self- 
surrender of sacrifice ? If not, how can He be a sacrifice 1 
The mere presence of the glorified Christ could never make 
the mass a real and actual sacrifice. 

How, again, can they maintain that Christ alone is the 
real and only priest of the mass, if they teach that their min- 
isters, too, are its real and true priests? Are there two 
priests in this sacrifice, Christ and the earthly priest ? And 
if the earthly priests are many in number, must not there be 
many unbloody sacrifices, too, of one and the same Christ, in 
many places, at one and the same time ? Where do they 



Connection of Sacerdotalism ivith Infallibility. 201 

learn in Scripture that their priest acts in the person of Christ 
and as His visible vice-gerent? How can Christ be the 
priest, when the Church assigns all the active agency in the 
offering of this sacrifice to the officiating priest, for the 
missal asserts that the intention of the priest is indispensably- 
necessary to the consummation of this sacrifice of the mass, 
and thus makes Christ a mere passive instrument of salvation, 
the efficacy of which depends on the caprice, whim, or inten- 
tion of a fallible priest ? 

As there is no other sacrifice but that of Christ under the 
Christian dispensation, the sacred wi'iters of the New Testa- 
ment have taken especial care never to apply even once the 
name of'iepev^ or sacrificing priest to the apostles or minis- 
ters of Christ. We have in Eph. iv., 11, an enumeration of 
the various offices of the Christian ministry, but the name 
'i'€f3sv<5 is not given to any order of men, nor the offering of 
sacrifice mentioned as any part of the duty of a Christian 
minister. 

In the third place, the office of the priesthood, in the 
Eoman system, is essentially connected with their theory of 
the sacraments. "No priest, no sacrament," seems to be their 
general rule. And as the Church of Kome is sacramentarian, 
par excellence, this connection with the sacraments gives the 
priesthood an immense power and influence over the laity. 
She teaches that a sacrament is an outward and visible sign 
of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us and ordained 
by Christ as a means whereby we receive the same and as a 
pledge to assure us thereof ; that this outward sign has effi> 
cacy in itself, and if rightly administered produces grace — 
ex opere operato. 

The entire religious life of Roman Catholics is interwoven 
with the sacraments. They are met by them whithersoever 



202 Roman Catholicism. 

they turn. Sacraments accompany tiiem from the cradle to 
the grave. They have seven of them. Soon after .they are 
born, the water of baptism cleanses them fi^om original sin, 
and regenerates them. When they arrive at the years of 
discretion, and lose their baptismal innocence by actual sin, 
and whenever in after-life they transgress God^s command- 
ments, they are forgiven by auricular confession and priestly 
absolution. When they set out on the journey of life, they 
are taught to receive the Holy Ghost by the imposition of 
the bishop's hands in the sacrament of confirmation. They 
are exhorted to receive frequently the body and blood of 
Christ in the sacrament of the altar; and they believe that 
the priest by the words of consecration calls Christ down 
from Heaven and changes bread and wine into His body and 
blood. They not only receive it as a sacrament, but also 
worship it as their God and Saviour ; they keep it in the 
tabernacle of their altar for perpetual adoration, offer to it 
the homage of incense, have lights burning before it day 
and night, carry it about in procession, and enclosing it in a 
costly repository, impart it with their benediction to the 
people. When they are sick, the priest administers to thern^ 
the sacrament of extreme unction, whereby they believe 
they obtain forgiveness of their sins, and help and patience 
in their bodily sickness. They receive d,lso a sacrament 
when they enter the state of matrimony, or are ordained to 
the ministry of their Church. 

Besides these seven sacraments, they have an endless 
variety of other sacred things. There is, indeed, no part of 
the Church's life, in its amazing variety, which is not blessed 
and consecrated by the priesthood in some external rite or 
ceremony. In fact, they believe that, as since Adam's fall 
every created object lies under the curse of God, the priest 



Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility, 203 

has the power of removing this curse by exorcisms, and of 
imparting to it a blessing for the good of man. These rites 
and ceremonies, exorcisms and blessings, consecrations and 
dedications, processions and pilgrimages, holy places and 
shrines, relics and miraculous images, religious observances 
of every description, scapulars, holy cords, rosaries, &c., &c., 
have accumulated in the Church beyond enumeration. And 
to every one of these things a peculiar efficacy is ascribed by 
the priesthood and devoutly believed in by the laity. 

What does all this mean? It means sacerdotalism or 
priestism. History teaches that, if once the Christian min- 
istry is given an altar with power to sacrifice thereon the 
Crucified Victim of Golgotha, they will make that fictitious 
altar and illusory power the centre of sacramentarianism. 

E.ead Koman Catholic treatises on the sacraments, and 
you will find that all their sacraments finally centre in 
this figment of an altar. And if you once admit sacramen- 
tarianism, there will be no end to the number of minor reli- 
gious observances, to which men will ascribe a certain 
material efficacy in the spiritual life of the soul. All these 
things are connected with each other, as a matter of course. 

But further still : Sacerdotalism cannot possibly exist 
without a high degree of ritualism. Around that fictitious 
altar and its supposed victim are gathered all the afiections 
of the priesthood. In that sacrificial Church the Godhead is 
believed to dwell bodily, and on that account the sacred edi- 
fice should surpass, if possible, even the temple of Solomon 
in splendour and glory. Before that altar priests and people 
must bow and prostrate themselves, for there they believe 
that the Lamb of God dwells, who was slain for the sins of the 
world. Nothing should be considered too precious to adorn 
that altar and ^abernacle, in order to remind the people oi" 



204 Roman Catholicism. 

the presence of the Lord. Lights should be lit, and incense 
burnt, and symbolic ceremonies performed. It should be 
sensibly felt by devout members, and appear manifest even 
to the occasional or careless observer, that here indeed the 
deep mysteries of the Christian Church are celebrated. They 
should be mysteries indeed ; not all that is going on in the 
great sacrifice should be seen by the people : let the priest 
turn his back to them. The solemn words of mysterious 
efficacy, by which he consecrates and ofiers in sacrifice the 
body and blood of Christ, let him whisper in an inaudible 
voice; and when the mysterious act is performed, let him 
elevate the host, in order that the people may bow down and 
adore. 

And should the priest alone — the actor in this mysterious 
performance, by whose powerful words the great change is 
efiected, and the miracle of miracles -performed, the observed 
of all observers — should he, I say, remain alone unadorned, 
in that beautiful church, and before that splendid altar] 
Should the cloud of incense be his only sacrificial garment ? 
Impossible ! Consequently he will take good care that the 
gorgeous splendour of his sacerdotal robes surpasses even that 
of the high priest in Solomon's temple. And why should it 
not % What comparison is there between him and the Jew- 
ish high priest % Is he not the priest of a more perfect dis- 
pensation — even of the New Covenant % Is not his victim, 
Christ himself, infinitely higher than bulls and goats % 

And as the Jewish high priest was surrounded in his sacri- 
ficial acts by his assistant priests and Levites, why should the 
Christian priest be without his deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, 
lectors, thurifers, exorcists, and other sacred clerics % And 
why should not these officers, too, according to their respec- 
tive dignities, be arrayed in splendid apparel ? And should 



Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility, 205 

not all these vestments, both of pontiff, priest, and assistants 
be selected with taste, and have a symbolical significance % 
And as monotony wearies, they should vary them according 
to the different seasons, festivals, and other sacred occasions. 

How glaringly human nature manifests itself within the 
sanctuary ! Dress is a powerful agent. It exercises an 
insinuating influence both on the wearer and beholder. The 
tasty, neat, and gorgeous apparel gives pleasure to the 
priest, and diffuses a feeling of satisfied importance through 
his soul. And the attendant worshippers, what of them % 
They, too, feel pleased ; they look upon their priest attired 
in his gorgeous sacrificial vestments as a superior being ; the 
sacred act of the priest surrounded by all the outward splen- 
dour of symbolism and art impresses them with a feeling of 
devotion — a feeling, I say, alas ! it is nothing more. 

Ritualism is not only an essential part of the mass, but it 
enters also into the administration of all the sacraments and 
other religious ordinances. Yes, everywhere sacerdotalism 
is followed by its faithful satellite, ritualism ; and, on the 
other hand, the latter is meaningless without the former. 
Ritualism, so far as history teaches, is either an outgrowth 
of sacerdotal pride and vanity, or a means of extending the 
influence of the priesthood. 

We by no means condemn rites and ceremonies promoting 
order and decency, and manifesting true taste j nor do we 
despise symbols that speak the truth and make it impressive. 
But we condemn, in the strong; 3st language, the ritualism 
that prevails in the Church of Rome and elsewhere, even 
among some infatuated Protestant brethren. Such ritualism 
is an error ; it is unreal, and symbolizes unrealities. It is a 
poison that has penetrated the masses of the Roman Church, 
and vitiated their spiritual taste, so that they have lost all 



206 Roman Catholicism. 

relish for evangelical simplicity and purity. Ritualism, 
which has become part and parcel of their nature, is one of 
the principal fetters that keep them in bondage to the priest- 
hood. 

I shall not speak here of the other offices and features of 
sacerdotalism, as they do not come directly within the pur- 
pose of these lectures. From what we have seen we have 
every reason to detest this huge system of unrealities ; but 
whilst we abhor the system, let us pity those who are en- 
snared by the seducing delusion, both priests and people, and 
let us teach them the truth in love. They are born under 
it, brought up in it from their very infancy ; and, growing 
up in it, it has become a second nature to them. We do not 
maintain that sacerdotalism crept into the Church through 
artifice and design, but rather through ignorance. It is an 
insidious error that would easily insinuate itself into the 
sacred ministry and imperceptibly adulterate its Christian 
character. 

The student of Church-history will have learned that it was 
in the first century only that the Christian ministry retained 
its pure and simple character. As unavoidable circumstances 
brought about new phases in the government of the Church, 
sacerdotalism, with its satellite ritualism, made its appear- 
ance also ; and from small and scarcely perceptible beginnings 
rapidly grew and ripened into a firmly rooted system. 

The converts to the Christian religion during the first 
three centuries, both from Judaism and Paganism, knew no 
other religious ministrations, prior to entering the Chris- 
tian Church, except such as were essentially sacerdotal and 
ritualistic. They brought their taste for sacerdotalism with 
them into the Church, and it could not be expected that they 
would entirely discard it. 



Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility, 207 

The state of the Church soon favoured this taste. We 
find that the Churches were at first independent of each 
other, but circumstances soon required that they should 
associate for mutual counsel and assistance. These associa- 
tions were at first of limited extent, comprising at the most 
one province; but thQ principle of association having been once 
introduced, it soon extended its sphere and influence. 
Churches met in synods, and these 'sent their delegates to 
general assemblies. This system of association created 
new offices, and gave a wider jurisdiction and a larger field 
of ambition to the Christian ministry. And this we believe 
was one of the reasons why the clergy of the second century 
grew less watchful against the inroads of that sacerdotalism 
for which the Jewish and Genfcile converts had an innate 
taste. 

The first seeds of sacerdotalism were sown by the Jewish 
converts ; for, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dis- 
persion of the Jews, it became their settled opinion, in which 
the rest of the members soon shared, that the Christian 
Church had to step into the place of the Jewish Church 
and hold exactly the same position among the nations of the 
world. Hence the different offices of the Christian ministry 
were considered equivalent to those of the Jewish temple : 
the bishop holding the place of the Jewish high priest, the 
presbyter or elder that of the priest, and the deacon that of 
the Levite. Thus the door was opened to sacerdotalism ; 
henceforth it grew rapidly ; a distance between clergy and 
people was created which gradually widened, and a hierarchy 
was planted in the Christian Church. 

After these first steps others followed as a matter of course, 
and others again were taken through the ambition of an 
aspiring clergy. Not content with merely claiming the titles 



208 Roman Catholicisvu 

of the Jewish priesthood, they demanded also its rights and 
privileges, such as tithes, first-fruits, distinctive and splendid 
garments, and other evidences of external grandeur. And 
as a priesthood cannot exist without a sacrifice, they sur- 
rounded the Eucharist with all sacrificial rites and cere- 
monies and thus corrupted the simple doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper into a real sacrifice, commemorative of the sacrifice 
of the cross. 

A multitude of ceremonies began to be introduced in 
the second century, not so much for the purpose of giving 
importance to the priesthood as to attract both Jews and 
Gentiles towards the Christian Church, and to refute the 
calumnies of those Gentiles who regarded the Christians as 
atheists, because of the simplicity of their worship. The 
love of symbolism and the symbolic manner of teaching pre- 
valent among the eastern nations was also a fruitful source 
of rites and ceremonies. 

As Christianity progressed, rites and customs in use 
among the Gentiles, were gradually blended with the Chris- 
tian worship, and of the penitential discipline much was bor- 
rowed from the* heathen mysteries, so that Christian ordin- 
ances themselves became known by the name of mysteries. 

If such was the increase of sacerdotalism whilst paganism 
held sway in the vast Roman empire, we cannot be surprised 
at its undisputed dominion when Constantine embraced Chris- 
tianity and gave to it his influence. He and his successors 
made over the Koman pontificate with its sacerdotalism to 
the Christian Church. Henceforth sacerdotalism had its own 
way ; the lay element was lost ; the priesthood became the 
Church ; the pomp of public worship gave it importance ; and 
its ambition knew no bounds. The arrogance of the bishop 
of Rome was finally the cause of the schism between the 



Connection of Sacerdotalism with Infallibility. 209 

East and tlie West. The bishop of the seven hills was ac- 
knowledged by western Christendom as its high priest, wear- 
ing the Urim and Thummim of supreme priestly authority 
and jurisdiction. New elements were added to sacerdota- 
lism by this high priest and his faithful allies, the monks. 
Darkness began to reign in the Church, and the history of 
Europe became the history of sacerdotalism. 

Study the history of Christian sacerdotalism from its be- 
ginnings down to our own day, and you cannot help being 
pained at its unreality and untruth, disgusted with its pre- 
tensions, horrified at its excesses, and saddened by the con- 
templation of its baneful consequences. It presents to us the 
picture of a spiritual despotism, blighting everything beneath 
its sway. It has impeded, nay almost destroyed, the fair 
Christianity of Christ. 

Alas ! my heart is overwhelmed with sadneirs, when I re- 
flect that among my Protestant brethren there are men who 
in their heart of hearts love sacerdotalism, would rejoice to 
see it re-established among us and employ their best talents 
and energies in promoting its growth. It has been planted 
within our borders; but it is, as yet, a feeble and sickly 
plant. How carefully these men nurse it ! They watch 
over it j desire to have it left alone ; guard it against 
rough handling ; protect it from every blast of con- 
troversy. And what, in the name of all that is good and 
Christian, do these dear brethren purpose % Do they wish to 
re-establish popery? By no means. They are conversant 
with Church history, and know that sacerdotalism is not ex- 
clusively Homan, that it prevails in all the eastern churches, 
and existed in the Church before Romanism was dreamt of. 
They glory in being Catholics, and are determined to hold 
everything that is Catholic, and they believe in a Christian 



210 Roman Catholicism. 

sacerdotalism because they think it is Catholic. Such is the 
mildest construction I can put on their sacerdotal aspirations. 
In all charity, I hope none of them is animated by sacerdotal 
vanity and ambition; for to such my remarks will prove useless. 
Does it never strike them that nothing can be truly catholic 
unless it is contained in the Bible, or can clearly be proved 
thereby and was held in apostolical times ; otherwise the 
principle, quod semper, uhique et ah omnibus creditum est 
would be inapplicable. Now sacerdotalism is not con- 
tained in the apostolical writings, and its seeds were only 
sown towards the latter part of the second century. It is, 
therefore, evidently uncatholic. And although it be not ex- 
clusively Roman being professed by the greater part of Chris- 
tendom, let them remember that it produced the papacy and 
Romanism together with the monstrous doctrine of infalli- 
bility and its associate errors. 

And if they say that it existed in the Church ever since 
she had a history, and that it is therefore part and parcel of 
the historic Church, we answer that we also believe in a 
historic Church, and a historic Christianity, but we know 
also that in the historic Church there are historic errors — 
errors that have played a conspicuous part in the Church's 
history. Are they to be believed as truths because they are 
historical ? Is their being historical a proof of their being 
catholic also ? Is sacerdotalism to be embraced because it 
has a long and conspicuous history ? God forbid. 

Let us rather go back to first principles; for they are 
always catholic. Let us walk in the old paths where we are 
taught that we have an altar, but that altar is Christ ; that 
we have a sacrifice, but that sacrifice is Christ ; that we 
have a high priest, but that high priest is Christ. Any other 
altar, sacrifice, or priest can be only fiction and unreality. 



Part III. 



TUE PAPACY AND INFALLIBILITY. 



LECTURE I. 

TEE PRIMACY OF PETER. 

THE papacy is the outgrowth of sacerdotalism, and the 
result of that Koman development which consists in 
addition and amplification. If you recognize a priesthood, 
you must have a high priest also. Hence the bishop of 
Kome, favoured by circumstances, put the coping-stone on 
the sacerdotal edifice, by laying claim to the highest priestly 
dignity, and assuming the title of pontifex maximus — a 
familiar dignity in the imperial city and one so highly hon- 
oured that the emperors invested themselves with it and per- 
formed its offices, in pagan times. When they embraced 
Christianity, it was conferred on the bishop of the metropolis 
of the world, who knew but too well how to use it for the 
development of his high-priestism and the aggrandizement 
of his power. 

Not only priestism, but also the system of clerical aristoc- 
racy, or, as it is usually called, high-churchism, seems logically 
to tend to popery, either avowedly or in efiect. In making this 
remark we have no particular Church in view; but we 
mean the high-churchism manifesting itself in every denomi- 
nation. It appears to us evident — and experience confirms 
our opinion — that men of high clerical pretensions feel 
naturally prone to aim higher and higher, until at last they 
concentrate the supreme spiritual power in one eccle- 
siastical dignitary. High churchism is antagonistic to the 



214 Roman Catholicism. 

rights and privileges of the laity ; how then can men enam- 
oured with it avoid sympathizing with popery which is high- 
churchism, ^ar excellence, — the culminating point of sacerdo- 
talism ? Both sacerdotalists and extreme High Churchmen 
cannot but admire the ecclesiastical system of Kome as coin- 
ciding with their own particular views and aims ; they only 
hate its abuses and excesses. If Kome gave up her claim 
to infallibility and submitted to salutary reforms, they would 
find no difficulty in joining her. Even as it is, with all her 
glaring errors, many have not hesitated to enter the Roman 
communion. 

Let any one pause and reflect before he regards with favour 
the system of the papacy. The pretensions of the pope are 
exorbitant. He claims to have supreme ecclesiastical juris- 
diction over the whole Church, exercising immediate episco- 
pal authority in all the dioceses. This authority embraces 
the power to convoke general synods at his pleasure, to pre- 
side over them, and to confirm or veto their decrees and defini- 
tions ; to decide controversies of faith and to define doctrines 
authoritatively, even without consulting the Church ; to 
enact and establish ecclesiastical laws and canons or to abro- 
gate them at pleasure ; to fulminate excommunications and 
inflict other ecclesiastical censures, and to relax them by 
indulgences and pardons ; to void promises, vows, oaths, and 
legal obligations by dispensation ; to be the fountain of all 
pastoral jurisdiction and dignity; to erect, transfer, and abol- 
ish episcopal sees ; to appoint, confirm, suspend, or remove 
bishops ; to exempt colleges, monasteries, or whomsoever he 
wishes from episcopal jurisdiction and oversight ; to confer 
dignities and benefices by his sole authority ; to judge all 
persons in all spiritual causes, finally and irrevocably ; to 
receive appeals from all ecclesiastical courts, and to reverse 



The Primacy of Peter, 215 

their decisions ; to exact oaths of fealty and obedience from 
the clergy ; to have supreme supervision over the civil laws 
of every country, and to forbid the faithful to observe such 
of them as appear, in his opinion, to conflict with the rights 
of the Church ; to demand absolute obedience to his will 
from all members of the Church ; to depose kings and 
magistrates and absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance. 
In short, he claims absolute and unlimited authority to regu- 
late everything in the Church, both generally and individ- 
ually ; he is the source of all law and authority ; and finally, 
he is the sole judge of the limits of hi§ jurisdiction. He is 
the absolute monarch of the whole Church, accountable to 
none but God, — exempt from judgment and liable to no 
reproof. He is the Church, He is believed to be infallible 
when he speaks ex cathedra. He is called the Head of the 
Churchy the Vicar of Christ, Our Lord the Pope, Most Holy 
Father, &g,, <i;c. 

Such an authority has no precedent in human history. 
Never on earth before has mortal and sinful man put forth 
universal claims like these to supreme control over the con- 
sciences of his fellow-men. We are, therefore, justified in 
requiring him to show the title-deeds of this overwhelming 
authority ; for they ought certainly to be clear and indis- 
putable. 

They tell us that the pope exercises supreme jurisdiction 
because he is Bishop of Rome, and as such, successor of St. 
Peter who received this authority from Christ and bequeathed 
it to his successors. 

The supreme authority of the pope, therefore, presup- 
poses : — 

1. That St. Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction over the 
Apostles and the whole Church. 



216 Roman Catholicism, 

2. That this primacy was not personal, but communicable 
to his successors. 

3. That St. Peter was bishop of Rome. 

4. That, dying whilst bishop of Rome, he left to his suc- 
cessors in that see for all time to come the supremacy which 
he had received from the Lord. 

Let us briefly consider these suppositions and see if, as 
papal title-deeds, they are clear and irrefragable. 

If one or the other be found unproven, the whole system o^ 
the papacy falls to the ground. I take this opportunity of 
recommending to your careful study Dr. Barrow^s excellent 
" Treatise of the Pope^s Supremacy ^ I believe it to be so com- 
plete and thorough that it must convince any impartial reader 
of the utter untenability of papal claims. 

In the first place, then, can it be proved from Scripture 
that our Lord conferred on St. Peter a supreme power of 
jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church ? As 
such an authority would be of the highest importance, it 
should be conferred in the clearest terms and distinctly 
recognized both by Peter and the other Apostles. 

The principal argument which is adduced to warrant and 
prove the primacy of St. Peter, is drawn from the words 
addressed by Christ to him, when he, first of all, confessed 
him to be the Son of the living God: "Thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven ; and whatso- 
ever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven," 
(Matt, xvi., 18.) 

Christ employs here the metaphor of a rock which may be, 
and has been, differently interpreted by the most eminent 



The Primacy of Peter. 217 

fathers and biblical scholars — some being of or)inion that this 
rock is Peter, others, that it is Christ, others again, that it is 
the confession of faith which Peter made. We find none of 
the ancients strictly interpreting it of the primacy of St. 
Peter, as understood by the Church of Rome. Why, then, 
should anyone be obliged, even according to the Poman 
Catholic rule of interpretation — which requires them to in- 
terpret Scripture in conformity with the universal consent 
of the fathers — ^why should anyone be compelled, I say, to in- 
terpret these words in the papal sense, when so many learned 
and pious men have interpreted them in a different sense *• 
With what reason can they pretend that meaning to be 
clear, which fathers and doctors did not perceive or even 
suspect ? 

Can it be supposed that our Lord would have conferred 
the title-deeds of such a stupendous inheritance on St. Petei 
in metaphors which are naturally ambiguous and admit oi 
diverse interpretations? Would not such a proceeding, 
instead of building up the Church on stable foundations, be 
like throwing the apple of discord into her precincts for all 
future generations ? Are not those who compel men thus to 
interpret these words guilty of dividing the Church ? 

Certainly, the other Apostles and disciples did not under- 
stand them in the Poman sense. How is it that St. Mark, 
the intimate friend of St. Peter, drops them altogether out 
of his narrative when relating the same conversation 1 Be- 
cause the object of that dialogue was to establish the divinity 
of Christ, not the supremacy of Peter. Would the Apostles, 
shortly after, have contended among themselves (Mark ix., 
33-37; X., 35-45) for the chief place, if they had understood 
these words as conferring supreme authority on St. Peter ? 
Would the bons of Zebedee also, a few daj^s after, have been 



218 Roman Catholicism, 

so foolish and presumptuous as to beg the chief place in His 
kingdom if they knew that Christ had promised it already to 
Peter % Would Peter himself have disputed with the other 
Apostles about the first position in the Church, if he had 
understood that Christ, by these words, had promised to 
make him her head? Would Christ Himself not have 
explained the metaphor, as he did on other occasions, when 
He found them disputing among themselves % Would He 
not have told them plainly, in order to obviate any future 
misunderstanding, that Peter was to be His vice-gerent? 
But instead of this, He exhorts them to humility, plainly 
giving them to understand that He would have no supreme 
lord and viceroy in His Church. 

Metaphors, in general, may be interpreted in difierent 
senses, and each interpretation may be correct at the same 
time, but under different aspects. So here, whether Christ, 
or Peter, or his confession of faith be meant by the rock, a 
beautiful meaning is the result, in each case. But we have 
to do here principally with Peter. 

If Peter be meant by the rock, the words heing a rock can- 
not mean government, for governing the Church supposes it 
abeady built and established. The Church must first exist 
before she can be governed. Indeed, what similitude is there 
between a rock and government % At least, there are much 
fairer explanations of the metaphor than this. Peter may 
be called a rock because on his faith, his witness-bearing, 
preaching, holy life, and miraculous actions the Church was 
built, as it was also on the other Apostles, according to the 
words of St. Paul, who declares that the Church is " built 
on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Him- 
seK being the chiei corner-stone." (Ephes. ii., 20.) 

L. iloman Catholics would interpret Scripture by Scrip- 



The Primacy of Peter. 219 

ture and exclude all special pleading in favour of a supreme 
jurisdiction conferred on St. Peter, they would clearly per- 
ceive that he received no power which was pecuKar to him 
alone, and superior to that bestowed upon the other Apostles. 
If he was a rock, so were they, for on them, also, the Church 
was built. If he received the keys, so did they ; for they 
also had the power of binding and loosing. If he had the 
office of feeding the lambs and sheep, so was it made their 
duty to feed the flock. 

Nor can they gain any special advantage, for the Petrine 
primacy, by saying that Christ addressed these words to 
Peter alone. The conversation was a dialogue between Peter 
and Christ ; Peter alone made the confession that He was 
the Christ, the Son of the living God ; it was, therefore, 
necessary and proper that to him Christ should address Him- 
self. But as Peter is usually the spokesman of the twelve 
Apostles, so here we must suppose that he made his glorious 
confession in the name of all, and that Christ's promise was 
intended for all. 

We must not take this promise out of its connection with 
Peter's confession. He had been called a rock before, when 
he was summoned to the Apostleship ; nay, the use of the 
name was equivalent to an Apostolic commission, for upon 
the Apostles, as upon rocks, the Church was to be built. He 
is not called, either in this text, or formerly, the rock, but a 
rock, one of the rocks — ^the other Apostles being his fellows. 
Christ, now, gives the reason why he had received this name, 
or, in other words, why he had been called to the Apostle- 
ship : it was because he confessed his faith in the grand and 
fundamental truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of 
God. We may thus paraphrase Christ's words : ^' Yea, thou 
art truly a rock, and upon such a rock, upon men oi such 



220 Roman Catholicism. 

faith, I will build my Church. It was on account of thy 
faith that I called thee a rock and made thee part of its founda- 
tion, ^. e., an Apostle of my Church ; for so long as it is built 
upon such a creed, the gates of hell cannot prevail against 
it." The whole tenor of the dialogue is about the confession 
of faith in the divinity of Christ ; the rest is merely inci- 
dental and gives the reason for Peter's call to the Apostle- 
ship. That this faith is the great object Christ had in view 
may not only be inferred from the concluding words of the 
discourse where He ''- charged His disciples that they should 
tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ," but also from the 
fact that St. Mark, the companion and friend of St. Peter, 
omits altogether the subordinate reference to his being a 
rock. And as the other Apostles had the same faith, they 
were also rocks, that is, foundations on which Christ built 
His Church. 

Nor can any conclusion in favour of Peter's primacy be 
drawn from the other metaphor used in this text : "I will 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven." In 
order to understand the figure, we must bear in mind that 
oriental keys were dissimilar to ours ; their use re- 
quired binding and loosing. Hence the following words t 
" whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be 
loosed in Heaven," signified the general use of the keys. 

We see here a gradation in the discourse of Christ. In 
the first part, the Church is to be built on such a rock ; in 
the second, it is supposed to have been built, and the keys of 
it are promised to Peter, Now, whatever the keys may 
mean, whether the faculty of opening the Church by preach- 
ing or admitting into it by baptism, or excluding from it by 
occlesiastical censures, or any other power, they were given 



^he Primacy of Peter. 221 

by Christ to all the Apostles, and in the very same words in 
Matt, xviii., 18. Peter, therefore, in receiving the keys, re- 
ceived no power peculiarly his own, or superior to that 
of the other apostles. If he, therefore, by the keys, received 
supreme spiritual power, so did they. 

Some Roman Catholics, in their special anxiety to establish 
Peter's primacy, insist that the words addressed to him are 
more general than those addressed to the other Apostles, and 
that therefore his power embraces theirs. To Peter he says 
quodcunque Co 'eaV) ligaveris, to the others quceeunque ''06 a 
'ear) ligaveritis — the quodcunque is more general than the 
qucecunque. Moreover, they say, the power of the keys was 
given to the other Apostles unitedly, — in gloho — they had to 
be divided, therefore, and to each one the proper sphere of 
his labours and powers assigned 3 and by whom should this 
be done but by Peter ? 

We answer, that the philological rule that the singular is 
more general than the plural is new to us. When Christ 
conferred the power of the keys on all the Apostles together, 
he, as a matter of course, used the plural — '^oda ^eolv — but 
this ""060. ''ecCv contains *'o 'eaV as many times as there were 
persons addressed. To us it seems that we ought to reverse 
the alleged philological rule. Secondly, there was no need 
of any one who should authoritatively assign to each of the 
other Apostles a particular sphere for the exercise of their 
power of the keys. They were Apostles, and as such not con- 
fined to any local Church or Churches ; they could preach 
and labour wherever they liked, provided, as St. Paul says, 
(Rom. XV., 20), " they did not preach the Gospel where Christ 
was named, lest they should build upon another man's foun- 
dation." Surely, it cannot be maintained that St. Peter 
coidd exercise the power of the keys in respect to the 



222 Roman Catholicism. 

Apostles ; for how could he open the kingdom of Heaven unto 
those who had long before been admitted into it by our Lord 
himself] And if he could not possibly exercise this power 
in the case of the Apostles, over whom could he use it % 

From the fact that Christ addressed these words first to 
Peter, they argue that he received a superior power. But 
this, again, is special pleading. Probably, our Lord said first 
to him, " Pear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men ;" 
might it not hence be inferred, by parity of reasoning, that 
he had a peculiar and personal commission to catch men ] 

Again, the endeavour is made to prove the supremacy of 
St. Peter over the other Apostles from the words addressed 
to him by Christ, after His resurrection, at the sea of Tibe- 
rias, *^ Peed my lambs ; feed my sheep." 

We believe that these words, far from exalting Peter, 
were calculated to humble, to teach humility, and to renew 
in him the salutary feeling of a loving repentance. You will 
perceive the force of this observation, if you reflect that only 
a few days had elapsed since he had thrice shamefully denied 
his Lord. On that mournful occasion he had shown that he 
was not a rock on which the Church could be built. He would 
almost appear to have forfeited all claim to Apostleship. 
True, he had repented and obtained forgiveness of his sin ; 
but might he not, again, trust too much in his presumptuous 
nature, and relapse 1 On that account our Lord seems to 
have intended to make his call peculiarly impressive to him, 
so that he might never forget it in after-life, it was, there- 
fore, on that very sea of Tiberias, probably at the very spot 
where he had first been called and received the title of 
rock, that our Lord appeared to him, after His resurrection, 
when he was engaged in his original avocation. Many 
thincrs had hauuened since his first call at that very place. 



The Primacy of Peter, 223 

He had denied his Lord.; the rest of the Apostles had not. It 
behoved him therefore not merely to repent as he had already- 
done, but to give assurances of his love. Hence, Christ 
asked him thrice " Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more 
than these T as if to remind him of his threefold denial. He 
does not call him Peter or rock, but simply Simon, son of 
Jonas, the name he bore previous to his first call to the 
Apostleship. And after having been assured thrice of his 
love, he gives him the commission to feed His flock, and 
makes him again a rock, ^. e., a foundation of His Church. 
Thus, instead of being a fresh exaltation to a primacy over 
the other Apostles, this scene by the lake of Tiberias was in- 
tended to make his Apostolical call for ever ^impressive to 
him. We cannot see how the words of this text can pos- 
sibly be made the basis of an argument for the primacy^ 
They are indefinite ; we cannot therefore, deduce from them 
a definite conclusion. " Feed thou my sheep," does not 
mean, ^'Feed thou alone, either personally or by agents, all 
my sheep." Yet, this meaning they must have, if they are 
construed so as to indicate Peter's appointment as the 
supreme shepherd. Did the Apostles need to be fed by 
Peter 1 Were they not immediately taught and guided by 
God Himself? 

It is evident that these words create no new authoritv 
superior to, and distinct from, the Apostleship. Peter here 
received no new power, different from that which he, 
together with the other Apostles, had received a Little before, 
when our Lord gave them their Apostolical commission, 
breathing on them and saying : " As my Father hath sent 
Me, even so send I you." This solemn authority included 
the feeding of the flock and all other powers. 

Nor could St. Peter's charge be more extensive than that 



224 Roman Catholicism. 

of the other Apostles ; they all had a general and unlimited 
care of the whole flock, according to their capacity and oppor- 
tunities. None of them was confined to a local bishopric ; the 
very nature of their Apostleship excluded limits. 

These are the principal texts which Boman Catholics 
adduce for the primacy of St. Peter. But their special plead- 
ing appears to be inexhaustible. It is astonishing to observe 
how they twist and turn everything referring to Peter into 
an argument for his supreme authority. In every incident 
of his life, in every action performed by him, they fancy 
they discern some manifestation of his pre-eminence. It 
betokens the weakness of their case ; but we shall not lose 
time in following them in their inconclusive argumentation. 

We find, indeed, no trace of a primacy in the whole New 
Testament. If such an ofiice had been instituted, it would 
have been distinctly mentioned, and a distinct name would 
have been given it. All the other sacred offices are distinctly 
enumerated by the inspired writers; but profound silence 
reigns in the sacred pages in regard to this sovereign office. 
If we look for the highest position in the Church, we find 
everywhere the Apostleship indicated, and nothing higher. 
The New Testament knows of no ecclesiastical king, 
no vice-gerent of Christ, no high priest, no visible head over 
all. On the contrary, Christ repeatedly protests against 
every kind of ecclesiastical lordship, and that in the strongest 
terms. 

If such an important sovereignty had been instituted, 
would not Christ have clearly explained its nature, and laid 
down distinct rules for its guidance, so as to guard against 
all abuse ? Would He not have inculcated obedience to this 
spiritual Lord? Would not the Apostles have exhorted 
their converts to have recourse to him It But not a word is 



The Primacy of Peter. 225 

spoken on this important point, in the whole range of the 
Apostolical writings. 

Again, if St. Peter had been appointed sovereign lord of 
the Church, should we not find signs of his supreme authority 
in the two epistles he has written % We should, at least, 
discover a trace of it either in the matter or style of his 
letters. But there is not the slightest indication of any such 
authority. " The elders," saith he, " which are among you, 
I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings 
of Christ," &c., &c. How different this from the style of tbe 
letters and bulls of the popes of Rome, his pretended 
successors ! Certainly St. Peter's letters do not savour of 
popery. 

In the Apostolical history, we find nowhere that Peter 
exercised primatal powers in the Church. In the councils 
mentioned in the first, sixth, and fifteenth chapters of the 
Acts, we do not find Peter acting as primate or prince. He 
is, indeed, prompt to speak, but in no case does the decision 
appear to rest with him. He never assumed any extra- 
ordinary authority. He appears to have had no thought of 
supremacy, but laboured hard and assiduously like the other 
Apostles. We nowhere find that he assigned to them their 
field of labour, confirmed their acts, or appointed bishops and 
elders in their field. 

In all the controversies which then agitated the infant 
Churches, we never hear of any appeal made to Peter's 
judgment, or any allegation of it as decisive; and no argument 
built on his authority. The other Apostles acknowledged 
no dependence upon him ; on the contrary St. Paul " with- 
stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." 

Assuredly, the whole New Testament, from the beginning 
to the end, knows nothing of a " Vicar of Christ." 

15 



LECTUEE 11. 

THE POPE'S SUPREMACY CONSIDERED. 

ROMAN Catholics, in order to establish that the pope is 
the supreme monarch of the Church, must connect him 
with St. Peter, by proving that he is his successor in the 
primacy. 

The question is, had Peter successors in whatever offices 
and prerogatives the Lord conferred upon him? It is 
marvellous that Eoman controversialists take the affirmative 
answer to this important question for granted. They offer 
not a scintilla of proof. 

We maintain that whatever authority he received from 
Christ was incapable of transfer j that it was vci&oqIj personal 
and therefore incommunicable to any successors. Roman 
canon law says : — Frivilegium personale personam sequitur, 
et cum persona extinguitur — a personal privilege doth follow 
the person, and is extinguished with the person. Whatever 
powers the Lord conferred on St. Peter were grounded on 
personal merits or graces, or upon personal gifts and endow- 
ments ; they were characterized by personal adjuncts and 
fully exercised in his personal acts. It is therefore unreason- 
able to extend them beyond his person. 

The Apostolical office itself, as such, was personal and 
temporary, and therefore could not be communicated or be- 
queathed. For it was requisite that an Apostle should be 
immediately designated and commissioned by God j that he 



The Pope's Supremacy Considered, 227 

should be a witness of the resurrection and ascension of 
Christ. He was a founder of the Church ; his commission 
was universal and indefinite, embracing all nations. In a 
word, the Apostleship consisted of many privileges and powers 
which could not be transferred to others, nor did the Apostles 
ever afiect to transfer them. 

Now, we have proved, in the preceding lecture, that the 
powers which St. Peter received from Christ were not distinct 
from the Apostolical office ; they ceased, therefore, with his 
death. But let us even suppose that Christ conferred on him 
a primacy of jurisdiction over the other Apostles, this also 
must have died with them ; for when there were no longer 
Apostles in the Church there could be no prince or head of 
the Apostles. 

But Roman Catholics say that the bishops are the succes- 
sors of the Apostles. We answer that they were called so 
by the fathers improperly, and in a broad sense, inasmuch as 
the episcopal office was contained in that of the Apostleship. 
But, strictly speaking, they are not successors of the Apos- 
tles; for the episcopal office was created by them, and its 
functions were exercised concurrently during the lives of the 
Apostles, and in subordination to them. Bellarmine himself, 
the champion of the papacy, tells us : " There can be no pro- 
per succession but in respect of one preceding; but Apostles 
and bishops were together in the Church." Bishops may be 
said to derive their authority from the Apostles, not by real 
succession, but by ordination and appointment. Can magis- 
trates be said to be successors of the king because they 
exercise some of his powers, and are appointed by him ? 

If the fathers, therefore, called the bishops successors of 
the Apostles, they meant that they had received their ordi- 
nation from some one, either immediately or mediately, whom 



228 Roman Catholicism. 

some Apostle had ordained bishop. No father ever dreamt 
that a bishop succeeded to the Apostolical office as such. 

Roman Catholics agree with us that the powers of the 
Apostles were extraordinary and unlimited, and that, in this 
respect, they have no successors ; but they maintain that St. 
Peter's office was that of an ordinary bishop having pastoral 
charge over the universal Church which they call his diocese, 
and that as each bishop has successors in his see, so also has 
St. Peter in his ordinary episcopacy over the whole Church. 

We answer that this is altogether a factitious argument — 
a gratuitous assumption. We find no such distinction either 
in Scripture or ancient tradition ; we are taught there that 
his charge was as extraordinary as that of the other Apos- 
tles, and every conceivable pastoral authority over the whole 
Church was ascribed to them all by the ancients. 

We everywhere find that the laws of succession to the 
chief magistracy in any realm are considered of the highest 
importance, and are clearly and distinctly laid down in order 
to avoid troublesome misunderstandings and dangerous dis- 
putes. And are we to suppose that, if Christ had appointed 
an absolute monarch over His Church, He would not also 
have given well-defined rules whereby his succession might 
be determined without shadow of doubt or fear of contradic- 
tion ? But the fathers of the first centuries know nothinsf 
about it, and deep silence prevails in the New Testament 
touching so important a point. All that Roman Catholics 
assert in regard to this succession is baseless and fanciful. 

We now come to the third step in the papal theory, 
namely the supposition that Peter was the regular and ordi- 
nary bishop of Rome, that is, chief local pastor of that 
Church. There are several valid reasons for believing the 
contrary. 



The Papers Supremacy Considered, 229 

Some learned scholars maintain that St. Peter never was 
at Rome. Their arguments, indeed, are very strong, and 
we do not see how Roman Catholics can overcome them 
But the question here principally relates to Roman bishopric. 

In the first place, we maintain that the office of an Aposth 
and that of an ordinary and regular local bishop are incom- 
patible. Peter, as an Apostle, was commissioned to preach 
the Gospel to every creature, to travel from place to place, 
to establish Churches, and to appoint bishops and elders j 
and especially had he the general charge of converting and 
visiting the Jews dispersed over the whole world (G-al. ii.,"8). 
And we may well believe that he was faithful to his Apos- 
tolical duties. With the spirit of a true soldier of the Cross, 
full of zeal, he carried the glad tidings of salvation to many 
places, and wheresoever he went the fruits of his Apostleship 
must have been manifest in the number of zealous Christians 
and flourishing Churches. We find him now at Antioch, then 
at Babylon, then at Corinth, anon in Palestine; sometimes, 
probably, at each of those places to which he directs his 
Catholic epistles, " the strangers of the dispersion in Pontus, 
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." There were mil- 
lions of Jews dispersed over the provinces of Asia Minor, 
whom he was specially commissioned to add to the Church, 
He must have laboured zealously among them. These pro- 
vinces contained over five hundred towns of considerable 
size ; yet, we gather from his epistles, and from other writers, 
that he was well acquainted with them, that he preached the 
Gospel everywhere amongst them, founded Churches and 
ordained bishops and elders. In fact, the most flourishing 
Churches were those of the provinces in which Peter laboured 
as an Apostle. 

Now, how can we reconcile such an Apostolate, and th® 



230 Roman Catholicism. 

zeal Peter displayed in performing its duties, with an ordi- 
nary local bishopric .? How could he be local pastor of Rome 
without neglecting his Apostolical duties'^ How could he 
give special attention to the E-oman Church when his Apos- 
tleship urged him to spread the Gospel everywhere'^ How 
could he combine both offices in himself, since one would 
have been sufficient to occupy all his care and attention ? 
Would it not have been a lowering of the Apostolical office 
to become local bishop of Rome % Would such a course not 
be the same as if a bishop became a deacon? Would his act- 
ing as an ordinary bishop not have been much, as if a king, 
besides his royal duties, filled the office of mayor of a 
city % Besides, why did he need to be a local bishop, when 
he, like the other Apostles, exercised episcopal supervision 
wherever he went? In fact, we find both him and the other 
Apostles superintending episcopally the local Churches when 
upon their Apostolic journeyings. 

If Peter had been Bishop of Rome, in the ordinary sense 
of the word^ he would have violated several wholesome 
ecclesiastical rules which were in full force from the 
beginning — or, at least, the reasons for which were always 
considered valid — and would thus have given a bad example 
to the whole Church. 

One of these rules was that the local bishop should always 
reside in his district. Peter would constantly have violated 
it had he been the local bishop of Rome. 

Another rule which held good from the begimiing was, 
that a bishop should not desert one Church and transfer 
himself to another. Peter would have broken it when he 
transferred his see from Antioch — where they say he was for 
seven years bishop — to Rome. 

Another ancient rule was. that no Chui^ch should have two 



The Pope's Supremacy Considered. 231 

bishops at the same time. But if Peter was bishop of Rome, 
this rule would have been disregarded, for the same authority 
on which his Eoman episcopate is built, asserts that St. Paul 
was also bishop of the same city. The same writers call both 
bishops of Rome. From this we may infer that both Apostles 
were bishops of Rome in a large sense, in their Apostolical 
capacity, but neither of them in a strict and local sense. 

We find, again, in ancient writers, that Peter either alone 
or in conjunction with St. Paul, acted at Rome as he and the 
other Apostles acted likewise in other places, that is, ordain- 
ed bishops, by virtue of his Apostolical office. Irenseus says, 
"the Apostles having founded and reared that Church, 
delivered the episcopal office into the hands of LinUs." 
(Irenceus apud Buseb,, V. 6.) TertuUian says that "St. 
Peter did ordain Clement." (Tert. de Prceser, 32.^ Others 
between Linus and Clement interpose Cletus or Anacletus. 

Hence we may infer that Peter never was bishop of Rome, 
or, on the supposition that he was, he did not continue 
so. For if he was bishop, he could not well ordain another, 
either to preside with him, or to succeed him ; there would 
have been two bishops, at the same time, of the same see, 
which would have been contrary to the invariable practice of 
the Primitive Church. Or, he laid down his bishopric and 
did not die bishop of Rome, which would militate against 
the Roman supposition. Or, he resumed it again before he 
died, and then what became of Linus, Cletus, and Clement 1 

To obviate all these difficulties and contradictions in his- 
tory, we explain those ancient writers who say that Peter 
was bishop of Rome by conceding that he was bishop of 
that city, in a general sense, because he founded that 
Church by preaching the Gospel there, and by ordaining 
a bishop to preside over it, and because having founded 



232 Roman Catholicism, 

it lie took an Apostolic oversight of its affairs whenever 
he happened to be in Rome. The other Apostles did the 
same with regard to those Churches which they founded; 
yet they were not bishops in a strict and local sense. We 
conclude, therefore, that St. Peter was never bishop of Rome 
in the proper signification of that word as understood by the 
advocates of the papacy. 

But let us advance another step. Granting even, for argu- 
ment's sake, that St. Peter received from Christ a monarchi- 
cal primacy, not merely personal, but communicable to i»uc- 
cessors, and that he was ordinary bishop of Kome at his 
decease, it would not follow even then that his successor in 
the Roman see would succeed him in the primacy also. 

According to the Roman theory, Peter would have held 
two distinct offices, that of head of the Church and that of 
local bishop of Rome — the latter, of course, inferior to the 
former. But according to Roman Catholic theology, these 
two offices were so closely welded together that succession 
to the inferior office involved also succession to the higher 
one. Now, who ever heard of such a rule of succession % It 
is altogether arbitrary. We can well understand that he 
who succeeds to a higher authority, succeeds also to those 
inferior offices which are in some manner connected with it; 
but the contrary is unintelligible to us. 

Such a canon of succession was altogether unknown in 
Roman civil society, during the first ages of Christianity. 
We find that in the Roman empire, the emperor was sovereign 
governor, and at the same time often assumed the office of 
consul of Rome ; yet when he died, the supreme authority 
did not lapse into the hands of the consul who succeeded him 
but into the hands of the senate and people. 

Now, the fathers adhering to this principle, suppose that 



The Popis Supremacy Considered. 233 

all the authority of St. Peter and of the other Apostles de- 
volved upon the Church and the bishops, the representa- 
tive body thereof. They teach that the Church, in this man- 
ner, received a sovereign spiritual power. In this sense, they 
affirm that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, 
not that any one of them possesses the Apostolical authority 
in its fulness, but that the whole body is endowed with 
supreme power in the Church. Dr. Barrow, in different 
parts of his admirable " Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy," 
quotes a large number of testimonies in confirmation of this 
doctrine. 

Where do Poman Catholics find their rule of succession to 
the supremacy % Scripture is altogether silent about it ; yet, 
in an affair of such vast moment, affecting the very frame- 
work of the Church, it might be presumed that God would 
have spoken clearly and distinctly in His revealed Word. 
But we do not find a syllable about the bishop of Pome and 
his succession to Peter's alleged supremacy. Nor will they 
discover their rule in the writings of the early fathers of the 
Church. 

But they say that it has always been the ecclesiastical law 
that whatever privileges a bishop brought to his see, they 
were ingrafted upon it and were inherited by his successors. 

We do not find this law in the primitive times of the 
Church. But if the Poman bishop holds his succession to 
the supremacy by virtue of an ecclesiastical law, then he is 
not the head of the Church jWe divino, as they dogmatically 
teach, hut jure ecclesiasticOy and the Church which gave him 
the supremacy by this law, may take it away from him at 
any time she chooses, and confer it upon another. And if 
he be pope jure ecclesiastico, the Church would be superior to 
him, which is altogether subversive of his claims. 



234 Roman Catholicism, 

Again, they say that it was Peter's will that the bishop 
of Kome should succeed him in the primacy ; that it was for 
the very purpose of avoiding all future disputes and difficulties 
about the suecession, that he chose to be bishop of a particular 
see ; that he first selected Antioch, but finding afterwards 
that Rome was a more suitable place for the exercise of the 
supreme headship, he transferred his bishopric to that city. 
I once heard a learned Roman Catholic bishop lecture very 
eloquently upon the wisdom of St. Peter in choosing Rome 
as the episcopal see from whence the Christian world should 
be governed ; he showed from the geographical position of 
Rome that there was no city in the world better adapted for 
universal dominion j and that having been the mistress of 
the world, in pagan times, was the way prepared for her 
spiritual headship in Christendom. Such forms of argument 
you find not only in popular lectures, where their statement 
might be pardoned, but even in the writings of grave and 
learned theologians. The fact is, they have no plausible 
foundation whatever for the succession of the pope to the 
alleged primacy of St. Peter. 

If such was Peter's will, how does that will appear % Where 
was it written and registered % It is nowhere to be found ; 
and we must take ni)thing for granted here. Our opponents 
should bear in mind that mere conjectures are not arguments. 

And if such had been his will, would he not have acted 
very unfairly in subjecting, after his death, St. John the 
Apostle, the beloved of the Lord, evangelist and seer, together 
with the other surviving Apostles, to the rule and will of 
Clement, ordinary bishop of Rome % Would it not have been 
reasonable and just to appoint St. John as his successor in 
the primacy % 

Again, if such were Peter's will, does it deprive the 



The Popes Supremacy Considered, ^35 

Church of her right to elect her supreme bishop? They 
maintain that the pope is the universal bishop, having ordi- 
nary charge over the whole Church as his diocese. Now, if 
the presbyters and people of each Church exercised from the 
beginning the right of electing their ordinary bishop, why 
should the bishops, clergy, and people of the whole Church 
as the diocese of the universal bishop be deprived of the right 
of electing their supreme pastor ? Would such a high-handed 
proceeding, on the part of St. Peter, have been just towards 
the whole body of pastors who were all deeply concerned in 
that succession ? Should the pastors of the universal bishopric 
have fewer privileges than the clergy and people of an 
ordinary diocese ? Should they humbly bow down and sub- 
missively accept any one as theii^ supreme spiritual head 
who might be imposed upon them by the clergy of the 
ordinary diocese of Eome % We cannot suppose that Peter 
ever willed any such thing. 

They say Peter knew what he was about : he foresaw the 
endless difficulties that would have been connected with a 
universal election by the whole Church, especially in perilous 
times. 

But these difficulties, however great they may have been, 
do not remove the injustice of the case ; especially when we 
consider the manner in which the Poman bishop has since 
been elected. Why, the history of the succession of the 
Poman bishops is a standing scandal in Christendom. We 
find innumerable defects and corruptions in these elections ; 
often, if not ordinarily, • the Poman bishopric was procured 
by ambition, bribery, or partiality, or managed by popular 
faction and tumults ; popes were intruded by powerful men 
or women, at their pleasure. If we study the history of these 
elections, we must admit that it is hard to see how Pome 



236 Roman Catholicism, 

retains the rightful succession, and how Pius IX. can claim 
to be a true successor of the first pope. Certainly, the pa- 
pacy is not indefeasible ; since, according to its own rules, 
it must have been diverted into the wrong channel. Where 
was the papacy during the many schisms — twenty-two in 
number % Who, in such times, was the universal teacher on 
whom the salvation of millions of souls depended % Those 
were not popes, even according to Roman teaching, who 
were intruded by violence, and they were not few. Were 
those men rightful popes who obtained the papal see through 
the instrumentality of influential harlots % How many elec- 
tions had a flaw in them, and were therefore null and void 1 
They were not popes but heretics who were simoniacally 
chosen, and they were many. Could men be called popes 
who succeeded a deposed pope % The pope, being sovereign, 
cannot be deposed. 

Was it right that so important an office, on which the 
welfare of all Christendom and the salvation of souls are 
said to rest, should depend upon an election liable to so 
many taints and corruptions % How short-sighted St. Peter 
would have been, if, in order to render the succession to the 
headship safe, he had restricted it to the see of a corrupt 
metropolis and left it at the mercy of an ambitious metropo- 
litan clergy and a turbulent populace. 

No ; St. Peter never dreamt of the papacy. The Scriptures, 
neither directly nor indirectly, know anything of the claims 
of the bishop of Rome. 

But even tradition, that great thesaurus of Roman dogmas, 
is mute on the supremacy of the Roman bishop. Several 
fathers give us catalogues of traditional doctrines and obser- 
vances, but in vain do we look for the papacy among them. 
Surely, such an important doctrine on which all orthodox 



The Pope's Supremacy Considered, 237 

teaching is said to hinge, should be a conspicuous article in 
the ancient creeds, and should not be omitted in the ancient 
catechisms or expositions of Christian belief. But we do not 
find it there. If the bishop of Rome were the head of the 
Church, the history of the papacy would be the history of 
the Church ; and therefore it is strange that Eusebius in his 
Church History ignores altogether the supremacy of the pope. 
Nor do any of the fathers, in speaking of the difierent 
Churches, or in explaining the nature of the government and 
discipline of the Church, ever mention such a headship or 
seem to be aware of the claims of the Roman bishop. 

The Apostolical Canons and The Constitutions of Clement, 
two very ancient works, which describe the government of 
the Church, its various offices, discipline, and customs, the 
ranks, duties and privileges of all ecclesiastical persons, do 
not utter a single word about the pope and his prerogatives. 
But if he had been the universal monarch of the Church, it 
is singular that they should not even mention him or his 
office. From these works we distinctly gather that the 
Church is not an ecclesiastical monarchy. 

If the pope had been acknowledged the universal teacher and 
pastor of the Church, the fathers, in their disputes against 
the heretics, would in the first place, have sought and urged 
his decree, as the conclusive argument, and as the most effi- 
cacious method of convincing or silencing them. But they 
appeal to Scripture, tradition, and reason, and seem not to be 
aware of such a universal teacher. Nay, they often resisted 
the teachings of the popes, and that, in later times, would 
have been considered downright heresy. 

Moreover, even the bishops of Rome, themselves, for 
several centuries, did not dream of the high claims which 
their successors in the ages following advanced ; they were 



238 Roman Catholicism, 

not aware that they were the heads of the Church. In their 
elaborate works against heretics, they content themselves 
with urging testimonies of Scripture and arguments groun- 
ded thereon, never asserting their own definitive authority 
against them. 

We may be certain that the divines of the Roman curia 
have made the most diligent search, in all the documents of 
Christian antiquity, for arguments and proofs in order to 
establish the supremacy of the pope, the central point of their 
system. But the impartial enquirer will find that they are 
not conclusive. It is painful to see how earnest men wrest 
words, and, from the pre-occupation of their minds, appear 
determined to make out their point by far-fetched applica- 
tions and by strained inferences. 

It is astonishing, if the pope were the sovereign monarch 
of the Church, as they would have him to be, that in so 
many ponderous volumes of ancient father^ living through 
so many ages after Christ, those vast treasuries of learning 
and piety, in which all the truths of Christianity are dis- 
cussed, and all the most important duties inculcated, this all- 
important article of faith, this momentous point of practice, 
this Christian duty of obedience to the pope as head of the 
Church should not be expressed in clear and peremptory 
terms. 

When did this doctrine originate*? How did it grow? 
How is it that it has got such a firm hold on the minds of 
men % Let us consider these points in our next lecture, 



LECTUEE III 

DEVELOPMENT OF TEE FAPACY—'TEE ROMAN BISHOF- 
BIG IN THE UNDIVIDED OEURCH. 

THE papacy is the growth of ages. It commenced with 
the introduction of sacerdotalism into the Church and 
the coping stone was laid by Pius IX., in the Vatican 
Council. The student of history, following it step by step, 
perceives it growing before his eyes, but fails to notice any 
divine element in it. Clerical ambition had first to be in- 
troduced into the Church, before the bishop of Eome could 
dream of a primacy. 

We find that the government of the Church in the first 
century was very simple. Congregations were small ; they 
assembled in private houses. Presbyters or elders, and 
deacons or ministers appear at first to have been the only 
officers. Soon bishops or superintending elders were ap- 
pointed by the Apostles. The nature of orderly Church- 
government required that as the congregation increased some 
one elder should superintend the management of its afiairs. 
The episcopal oversight did not long remain confined to one 
congregation. The bishop preached the Gospel in the neigh- 
bourhood, and formed new communities to which he ap- 
pointed presbyters ; and it was proper and reasonable that 
he should also superintend these Churches. But the epis- 
copal office of those times difiered greatly from the episcopal 
sway and lordship which were afterwards claimed. 



240 Roman Catholicism. 

We find that the primitive Churches were entirely inde- 
pendent of each other, each one managing its own afiairs in 
perfect liberty. But the government of the Church under- 
went a change towards the latter part of the second century, 
when Churches associated for mutual counsel and assistance 
and met together in Synods, to which each community sent 
its delegates. At first, each of these associations extended 
to one province only ; but soon these provincial synods gave 
rise to larger assemblies. It was the system of association 
which first increased the power of the bishops ; for they 
alone were considered the natura] and rightful delegates and 
representatives of their Churches. It created new offices of 
honour and jurisdiction which soon became objects of am- 
bition. A metropolitan was placed over each province, and 
a patriarch over associations of several provinces. 

At the same time, the bishops commenced to look upon 
themselves as successors of the Apostles, and those Churches 
which were immediately founded by the Apostles enjoyed 
greater honour, and were called Apostolical Churches. The 
Churches lost their primitive independence, for they were 
now governed by canons framed in these synods and general 
assemblies. 

At the same time, sacerdotalism and its satellite ritualism 
made their appearance and in course of time were firmly 
established in the Church, giving to the clergy an immense 
authority over the laity ; whilst the bishops came to be 
regarded as the high priests of their respective charges. 

Thus we find that the government of the Church, in the 
third century had become an aristocratic oligarchy. It was 
contended that the universal authority of the Apostles had 
descended to the whole body of bishops. No single bishop 
was as yet believed to be the inheritor of all fche Apostolical 



Development of the Papacy, 241 

powers, for all bishops alike were said to stare in them, and 
they could not be exercised except by the whole united 
episcopate. 

The bishops of the Apostolical Churches appear to have 
enjoyed greater honour; and the patriarchs of Kome, Antioch, 
and Alexandria were placed in the first rank. The bishop 
of Rome soon began to enjoy a pre-eminence of order and 
association, but not of jurisdiction. No bishop ruled as yet 
over another ; they were perfectly independent in the man- 
agement of their own dioceses. In the Apostolical Canons, 
The Constitutions, The Recognitions, Clementine and other 
documents which were forged about this time, we find no 
traces of a papal supremacy. 

But the first incentives to this claim had been given and the 
first foundations of an ecclesiastical monarchy laid. The 
rights of the people and clergy had been destroyed by the 
bishops. The next step towards introducing an ecclesiastical 
sovereignty was to reduce the authority and independence of 
the bishops. A spiiutual oligarchy having enslaved the people, 
the inevitable consequence must follow that an ecclesiastical 
despot will be found to subdue the episcopal oligarchy. At 
the end of the third century we find that the bishops have 
made the bishop of Rome the first patriarch in .the Church. 
Out of this patriarchate the papacy was gradually but perse- 
veringly developed. 

The conversion of Constantine had a great influence on the 
government of the Church. The Chiistian Church became 
the Church of the Roman empire. Church and State were 
soon united. We read in Eusebius that the emperor divided 
the administration of the Church into an external and inter- 
nal inspection ; and although he left the latter to the bishops, 
he assumed the former to himself He exercised supreme con- 

16 



242 Roman Catholicism 

trol over the whole ecclesiastical body in so far as he deemed 
it conducive to the public good. He accommodated the divi- 
sions of the Church into ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses 
to the divisions and subdivisions of the empire. Leaving to 
the bishops the government of their particular churches, he 
aided them in determining controversies. To this end he 
called together the first general council at Nicsea, and his 
successors adopted the same ecclesiastical polity. 

From this it is evident that, although the bishop of Rome 
was allowed to be the first patriarch, his primatial jurisdic- 
tion was even yet unknown. What would have been the 
need of general councils, if he had been the infallible head of 
the Church as Eoman Catholics suppose him to be ? Would 
the emperors have taken so active and prominent a part in 
the general oversight of the Church '2 Would not the pope 
have protested against undue secular interference? Yet, 
notwithstanding that the supposed claims of the Koman 
bishop were steadily, and without protest, ignored, the Roman 
see was moving onward, gradually and imperceptibly, towards 
supreme authority over the entire Church. It has ever been 
the policy of the bishops of Rome to hold fast and retain 
tenaciously what they have once got into possession, and to 
make it the stepping-stone to a further development of their 
power. We see nothing singular in this if we reflect that, 
ever since the third century, the bishops were the lords of 
the Church, and ambition was one of their besetting sins, in 
fact the curse of the Church. Each bishop considered it his 
sacred duty to preserve intact the privileges of his see, and, 
if possible, to enlarge them. The history of the Church pre- 
sents to us a continual struggle of these priestly lords for the 
aggrandizement of their power. Episcopal ambition and 
lordly pride, indeed, have always been the bane of Christ's 



JDevelipment of the Papacy, 243 

Church. It seems, therefore, quite natural to us that the 
bishop of Rome should follow the example of his episcopal 
brethren and pursue the same course in maintaining and 
extending his rights. The papacy is the legitimate offspring 
of episcopal pride and corruption. 

Circumstances favoured the prelate of Rome. It will be 
conceded by all that the lustre and 'prestige of a bishopric 
greatly depend upon the secular importance of the city over 
which he presides. Now, Rome was the imperial metropolis 
of the world ; thither men resorted from all parts of the vast 
empire, either for the various purposes of civil government 
or for other sufficient reasons. The bishop of that city pre- 
sided over the most wealthy and influential Church ; he had 
the means of assisting those who applied to him for aid. 
Since the Church had become united with the State, he must 
have wielded considerable influence with the higher powers. 
He had the advantage of being known throughout the whole 
empire, and the splendour in which he lived excited general 
wonder and admiration. 

It is quite natural that, as bishop of the first city, and 
enjoying advantages above the rest of his brethren, he should 
have been considered first bishop in the Church, and held in 
high esteem and veneration among his brethren. And it 
may be supposed that, as a matter of course, he enjoyed a 
certain pre-eminence of order and honour j that his opinion 
was sought by contending parties \ and that in the assemblies 
he attended, the presidency devolved upon him, without dis- 
pute. That all these honours were showered upon him, at 
first, solely because he was bishop of the first city of the 
empire, is indisputable from the fact that as Constantinople 
afterwards became the imperial metropolis, the bishop of 
that city claimed equal honours with the bishop of Rome— 
because it was New Rome. 



244 Roman Catholicism. 

It is in the nature of power to grow and extend itself, 
laying hold of everything within its grasp, watching opportu- 
nities for its aggrandizement, and improving them to the 
best advantage, overcoming opponents and gaining new 
friends and adherents. Hence the growth of the papacy is a 
repetition of the old story, how mighty empires arise and 
grow out of small beginnings. Rome being the first city, 
an Apostolical see founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, 
its bishop claiming to be the successor of St. Peter, — these 
were the beginnings of the papacy, from which the race for 
supremacy began. 

In this struggle for sovereignty, Rome had the advantage 
over secular powers because she claimed spiritual authority 
over the consciences of men. Spiritual power is of a growing 
nature j it insinuates itself into the heart ; its arms are the 
most subtle, yet the most potent, and they cannot be captured 
or destroyed by any earthly opposition. They are always 
ready furnished and make a powerful impression, since the 
Church can promise God's blessing and eternal happiness to 
those who obey its commands, and threaten the disobedient 
with divine vengeance and eternal misery. 

The next important step which the bishop of Rome took 
in his contest for the sovereignty of the Church may be 
traced in some canons of the council of Sardica (in 347) 
which introduced appeals to him, in certain cases. These 
canons are very doubtful in point of authenticity and, even 
if genuine, by no means recognise the supremacy or establish 
it, and at any rate were applicable only to the West. But 
they did the popes great service and proved potent engines 
by which to enlarge their power and enslave the Western 
Church. They were emboldened by them to receive all kinds 
of appeals and to reverse the j adgments of provincial coun- 
oila. 



Development of the Papacy. 245 

We find also that the imprudence of the emperors and the 
precipitate action of bishops afforded fatal opportunities for 
enhancing the power of the bishops of Rome. Although they 
were merely citizens like the other subjects of the empire, 
and instead of making ecclesiastical laws, were obliged to 
obey those made by the emperor or by councils convened 
under his orders, yet the emperors sometimes referred impor- 
tant causes to their judgment. Nay, Yalentinian went so 
far as to enact a law (in 372), ^^ empowering the bishop of 
Kome to examine and judge other bishops, that religious dis- 
putes might not be decided by profane or secular judges." The 
bishops would have spurned the idea of deriving their 
authority from the bishop of Rome or of holding their com- 
missions by favour of the Koman see, because they con- 
sidered themselves independent of it, both as regards the 
origin of their authority and the manner of exercising it. 
Yet we find that, as many of them were cringing flatterers of 
the powerful and influential Roman prelate, they unconsci- 
ously forged fetters for the entire episcopate. Thus the 
bishops assembled in council at Rome (in 378) highly ap- 
proved of the above mentioned law of Yalentinian and 
humbly petitioned the emperor Gratian to give it full force. 
These and similar laws, and not divine authority, formed 
some of the material out of which the papacy was built by 
slow yet sure instalments. 

In order to understand the growth and development of the 
papal power we must also take into consideration the state of 
the Church during the first eight centuries. The whole em- 
pire was agitated by the most vital questions, both religious 
and political. The very existence of Christianity was at 
stake. Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monothel- 
ism, &c., &c., with their numerous ramifications^ were rend- 



246 Roman Catholicism, 

ing and convulsing Christendom. The bishops of the chiei 
city were compelled to side either with the one party or the 
other. And it was but natural that the party with whom 
they sided, being successful, should look up to them as 
leaders and chieftains in their cause. Now, it so happened 
that, in those doctrinal questions which form the basis of 
Christianity, the Roman pontiffs took the side of the ortho- 
dox or Catholic party, which fought for the cause of truth 
and obtained the final victory. This espousal of the truth, 
and the successful issue of its contest with heresy, gave the 
bishops of Rome great influence in the Church. The fore- 
most champions of the truth, such as Athanasius and Cyril- 
lus, and other good bishops and eminent men who were 
violently persecuted by the heretical factions, sought and 
found shelter under the protection of the powerful bishop of 
Rome. As a matter of course, he was extolled by the pre- 
vailing party, and obtained both reputation and power. It 
was for this reason that the Sardican synod framed those 
canons of appeal which became one of the main engines by 
which he raised himself so high. 

As we have stated above, the bishops commenced as early 
as the third century, if not earlier, to encroach upon the 
rights and privileges of the clergy and laity. Their turn of 
enslavement came on next, gradually, but surely. The his- 
tory of the third and subsequent centuries presents to us a dis- 
gusting spectacle of prelatical ambition, dissension, and war- 
fare. The whole empire was agitated by the ambitious 
schemes of the bishops. They endeavoured to extend their 
respective spheres of jurisdiction and encroached upon one 
another's rights. Pretexts were not wanting in palliation 
of their ambitious designs. Some thought the political impor- 
tance of their episcopal city a sufficient reason for asserting 



Development of the Papacy. 247 

ecclesiastical superiority; others alleged its Apostolical origin, 
pretended or real, as an incontrovertible ground of pre- 
eminence ; others claimed episcopal jurisdiction over those re- 
gions which had been converted to Christianity through their 
instrumentality. These ambitious intrigues revolutionized 
the constitution of the Church, and 'patriarchal government 
was the issue. Thus another step was made towards an eccle- 
siastical monarchy. The patriarchate will finally be merged 
into the papacy, but the episcopate must first be weakened 
and humbled under the patriarchate, before it can be en- 
slaved by one spiritual despot. 

At first, only the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexan- 
dria were endowed with patriarchal dignity and jurisdiction. 
To these very soon the bishop of Constantinople was added, 
on account of the political importance of his see. The 
bishop of Jerusalem agitated next for patriarchal honours, on 
account of his see being the mother Church of Christendom, 
and these were confirmed to him by the Council of Chalcedon. 

Henceforth the quarrels of these five patriarchs become 
conspicuous in the Church. In proportion as they allowed 
the bishops under their jurisdiction to trample on the rights 
of the people, they themselves curtailed the privileges of 
their brethren of the episcopal order and lorded it over them. 
Instead of promoting peace, they fomented dissensions in 
order to enjoy the exquisite pleasure of exerting the 
patriarchal power, which they constantly enlarged. In order 
to subdue the bishops, these lordly patriarchs became the 
special patrons of the monks, those lazy and turbulent pests 
with which the Church, especially in the East, was then 
swarming, and by mujxificent donations and concessions en- 
gaged their services to oppose the authority of the bishops. 
They were the ecclesiastical army of the few spiritual despots 



248 Roman Catholicism, 

who then ruled the Church. It appears to us that the 
monks have certainly been the principal instruments, in the 
hands of ambitious rulers, first in establishing and then in 
consolidating the papacy. At no time, even down to our 
own, could the papacy have continued to exist without them. 

If the patriarchs oppressed their inferiors, they also tried 
to extinguish each other. The bishop of Constantinople con- 
tested the supremacy with the bishop of Rome, and used 
every form of intrigue to crush the other Eastern patriarchs. 
The latter, although struggling with all their might against 
that ambitious prelate, succumbed to his superior power and 
had to submit to his rule. But the Roman pontiff was too 
potent for the patriarch of Constantinople. 

We have thus advanced another step in our exposition of 
papal development. Spiritual despotism^ is firmly rooted in 
the Church, and the contest for ecclesiastical supremacy is 
reduced to two rivals, the bishops of Rome and of Constan- 
tinople. 

The dissensions in the east contributed to enhance the 
power of the Roman bishop; for the patriarchs of Antioch 
and Alexandria, in their contests with the Byzantine prelate, 
alternately fled to Rome for succour and protection, and the 
inferior order of bishops applied also to the Roman see when 
their rights were encroached upon by the bishops of Alexan- 
dria and Antioch. Even the patriarchs of Constantinople, 
who, in their prosperity, rivalled the bishop of Rome, applied 
to him for aid when they were oppressed by the emperor, or 
when they had to contend with a rival competitor for their 
bishopric. If thus the Eastern bishops fled to Rome in their 
distress, there was a similar concourse thither from the West, 
where the pope exercised patriarchal jurisdiction without 
dispute. 



Development of the Papacy. 249 

This proceeding on the part of oppressed bishops does not 
prove the universal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, but it 
greatly increased his influence. For what will men not do 
when in straits % They must flee somewhere for redress, and if 
they believed that the patriarch of Kome could aid them, 
why should they not have recourse to him % 

It was but natural that those who thus applied to E-ome, 
should extol the authority of that see, not merely to display 
their gratitude, but also to advance their own cause ; for the 
greater its authority, the more weight the decision of its 
bishop would have in their case. 

Moreover, the Roman clergy, the bishops of Italy, and 
others in the West who basked in the sunshine of the bishop 
of Rome, enjoyed his favours and participated in his privi- 
leges would, of course, exert themselves to the utmost to 
enlarge his authority and induce him to believe that he was 
in fact and of right the ruler of the universal Church. It 
was their policy to urge him to higher assumptions, and 
assist him by all means to acquire power and maintain it. 
Even if there had been a Roman bishop of no ambition, his 
power would have grown of itself. He only needed to be 
passive therein, and his partisans would work for him, be- 
cause they had as deep an interest in its firm establishment 
and solid advancement as himself 

But we have no instances of this want of ambition in the 
bishops of Rome. They were gradually, but by no means 
reluctantly, led into the belief that they were the spiritual 
sovereigns of the Church. Little by little their power in- 
creased. It was considered a sound maxim by the bishops, 
not only to retain what they possessed, but also to increase it. 
Why, then, should the bishop of Rome have scruples in en- 
larging his power % Men had recourse to him, and, in order to 



250 Roman Catholicism. 

obtain his countenance and influence in their behalf, used ex- 
pressions magnifying his authority ; was it not natural that 
he should view this language in the light most favourable 
to himself? Suppliants, in their addresses to him, often 
employed words which in themselves do not mean a real sup- 
remacy, but were nevertheless interpreted as implying it. 
Thus successor of Peter, Apostolic see, prima sedes are merely 
terms ®f honour ; the word of bishop applied to St. Peter does 
not mean a bishop in the proper sense ; the word head signi- 
fies any kind of eminence ; prince, any priority : to preside, 
any kind of superiority ; successor, any derivation of power ; 
authority, any kind of influence upon the opinions and 
actions of men. The atmosphere in which the Roman 
bishops moved had the effect of inspiring them with the 
idea of power. They lived in great splendour, the men with 
whom they came in daily contact either crouched silently be- 
fore them or treated them to the most fulsome adulation. 
Men are naturally prone to exalt power, and the possessor of 
it greedily accepts flattering words as true, and construes 
them in their most attractive sense. Hence it is not surpri- 
sing that the bishops of Rome, in course of time, should be- 
come imbued with the belief that their authority extended 
beyond the limits of their patriarchate. 

There are many reasons why the E-oman pontiffs outran 
the patriarchs of Constantinople in the race for supremacy. 
The mighty political convulsions which commenced in the 
fourth century, contributed greatly to this end. The impe^ 
rial power was on the wane, and its abandonment of Rome 
and removal to Constantinople, instead of diminishing the 
authority of the Roman bishop, greatly increased it ; nay, 
left it almost free of control. From this time forth, besides 
the spiritual, he commenced, also, to assume a temporal 



Development of the Papacy. 251 

swaj ; for not only did the order of the city depend greatly 
on his authority, but sometimes he was obliged to meet the 
invading conquerors of the North and treat with them for 
its very life and existence. Where kings and emperors would 
have failed, the Roman pontifex maximus succeeded. 

The incursions of the barbarians contributed greatly to 
the advancement of his power. For when those rude and 
unsophisticated sons of the North perceived how the peo- 
ple were led by the bishops and how they depended upon 
the pope, they were moved by the desire to reconcile this 
potent high priest by treating him with the deepest rever- 
ence and conferring upon him all the honours and benefits 
they could bestow. 

It may seem paradoxical, yet it is true, that, these northern 
nations, so free and unbridled, contributed more than any other 
single cause to the growth and consolidation of the papacy. 
As pagans they were absolutely enslaved by their priests, the 
druids, whose authority they consulted in all affairs, civil or 
military. They had a chief druid or high priest who exer- 
cised boundless power and whom they honoured with the 
most abject veneration. Now when they, almost en masses 
embraced Christianity, they brought all this slavish submis- 
sion into the Church and lavished it upon the Christian 
priesthood : they regarded the bishops as they had erewhile 
regarded the druids and the pope as the archdruid, and con- 
ferred upon him an authority greater than he had enjoyed as 
pontifex maximus. 

However, the papal edifice was by no means complete even 
yet. What Rome had gained in the West, it lost in the East. 
The contest between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople 
continued without respite until the final rupture in the ninth 
century. The Roman bishops sometimes gained advantages 



252 Roman Catholicism. 

over their Eastern patriarchal opponent ; but they were only 
temporary. It was a contest not only about the limits of 
their respective patriarchal jurisdictions, but also touching 
supreme dominion over the whole Church. Both were de- 
termined and obstinate ; one or other must ultimately yield, 
or the contest would finally end in a schism between 
Western and Eastern Christendom. Pope Gregory the 
Great in vain opposed the assumption of the title of 
(Ecumenical Bishop by the bold prelate of Constantinople 
(A.D. 588). Pope Boniface III. prevailed upon the Emperor 
Phocas, notorious for his crimes and tyranny, to take from 
the bishop of Constantinople the title of (Ecumenical Bishop 
and confer it upon the Roman bishop. This is the first in- 
stance in which we find the papal supremacy openly and 
officially recognized, but it was never acknowledged in the 
East. Other causes afterwards added fuel to the bitter ani- 
mosity. Favourable opportunities several times presented 
themselves for healing the old wounds and uniting the two 
Churches ; but the insatiable ambition and unreasonable de- 
mands of the Boman pontifi" destroyed all possibility of an 
amicable adjustment, and a final and complete disruption 
was the result. 

Thus the grasping ambition of the bishop of Home was 
the cause of the division of Christendom into two great sec- 
tions bitterly opposed to each other. He never held sway 
in the East and never exercised supreme authority over the 
intellectual Greeks ; it was amongst the Western barbarians 
only that he managed to develop the monstrous claims of 
the papacy. 

Let us continue the consideration of this development in 
our next lecture. 



LECTUEE IV. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY AFTER THE GREAT 

SCHISM, 

LET us continue, in this lecture, our review of the de- 
velopment of the papacy. We have followed it up to 
the schism between the East and West. The West, hence- 
forth, is the only field in which the bishops of Rome may put 
forth their ambitious claims. But even here this develop- 
ment required centuries. 

They directed every effort, religious and political, to estab- 
lish and enlarge the authority and pre-eminence they had ob- 
tained from Phocas, the most odious tyrant that ever disgraced 
the annals of history. But we find that their ambitious views 
were strongly opposed, not only by the emperors and kings, 
but also by the various nations of the West. Their election 
and confirmation depended on the will of the civil powers. 
They had to obey the temporal rulers and act as dutiful sub- 
jects, like other citizens. We learn from Bede that the 
ancient Britons and Scots knew nothing of the papacy and 
could not be induced to submit to the decrees of the ar- 
rogant Boman pontiffs. Spain and Gaul retained, for a long 
time, their ecclesiastical independence, and often sturdily op- 
posed the encroachments of the papal see. Even in Italy 
his power was limited ; and there were multitudes of private 
persons who opposed the lordly ambition of the bishops of 
Bome. Yet, such opposition was by no means considered 
as savouring of Iieiesy or schism. 



254 Roman Catholicism. 

The next great step towards universal dominion made by the 
pope was his investiture with temporal sovereignty. Indeed, 
we may say that he possessed no real spiritual dominion un- 
til after he became a temporal prince. The papacy was the 
outgrowth of favouring circumstances. His temporal 
power sprang from the feeble condition and final decay of 
the Roman empire, and the peculiarly favourable disposi- 
tion of the invaders from the North. These barbarian con- 
querors, when they embraced Christianity, not only trans- 
ferred to the Church all the old superstitious reverence with 
which they had regarded the druids, but also heaped upon 
her a large proportion of the rich spoils they had taken from 
conquered nations. Not content with giving gold and silver, 
they manifested their superstitious veneration for the clergy 
by conferring upon bishops, churches, and monasteries 
feudatory rights over whole provinces, cities, castles, and for- 
tresses. This unwonted accession of wealth and power began 
with their head, the Roman pontiff, who not only gladly re- 
ceived it, but claimed it as a right, adducing proofs from 
Scripture and forged documents of former territorial dona- 
tions. 

The temporal power of the pope had its real origin in the 
unjust aid which Pope Zachary afforded to Pepin in dethron- 
ing Childeric, king of France, and usurping the crown for 
himself. Pepin, in order to attach to himself the powerful 
pontiff, freed him from the yoke of the Lombards and 
conferred on him sovereign rights over the Roman dukedom. 
Charlemagne completed the conquest of the Lombards and 
confirmed and enlarged the grant which his father Pepin had 
made to the pope. 

The restoration of the Roman empire in the West by the 
pope, who conferred the title of Roman emperor upon Char- 



Reviezv of the Development of the Papacy. 255 

lemagne, and crowned him solemnly at Rome, added im- 
mensely to the dignity and development of the papal au- 
thority. From that time forward the popes claimed the 
right to confirm and crown the emperors. Nothing, how- 
ever, contributed more to the enlargement of the papacy than 
the investiture of the pope and the bishops with temporal 
sovereignty : for the pope had now the means of enforcing 
his spiritual claims. 

He was greatly favoured in the enlargement of his des- 
potic authority by the exaggerated views which began to be 
entertained in the eighth century of the terrible potency of ex- 
communication. In former ages excommunication entailed, 
it is true, many disagreeable results, yet the excommunicated 
person was not deprived of his privileges as a citizen, or of 
the common rights of humanity. The Northern Nations 
brought with them into the Church their high and mons- 
trous views in regard to ecclesiastical excommunication. 
They attributed to it the same terrible effects which they had 
believed that the excommunication of their pagan priests 
brought upon the accursed. Hence persons who were exclud- 
ed from the communion of the Church by the pope or bishops 
forfeited on that account, not only all their civil rights as 
citizens, but also the common privileges of humanity. Ex- 
communication had the awful effect of dissolving all con- 
nexions ; it meant outlawry from all society, complete 
degradation of the man. King or prince, under this fearful 
sentence, not only lost his crown, but became an object of 
aversion to all his subjects. No wonder that the popes, with 
such a weapon in their hands, could go onward in their 
march for absolute and unlimited supremacy, and finally 
claim to be supreme lords of the universe, 

Aq;ain and again did the papacy profit and grow stronger 



256 Roman Catholicism. 

by the disturbed state of the empire. It migbt have been 
a blessing to the world and, in many cases, have prevented 
war and bloodshed ; but in order to obtain its sinister ends 
it often plunged nations into long wars, social confusion, and 
misery. It learned its first lessons of temporal aggrandize- 
ment in the fall of the old Roman empire ; success embold- 
ened it and, through a long series of centuries, it became the 
universal marplot — the promoter of commotions and blood- 
shed amongst the European nations. Its sole aim was to be- 
come a powerful and universal kingdom of this loorld. It 
obtained its end ; but how much misery and injustice has it 
to answer for ! 

From the time that it acquired the first beginnings of 
temporal sovereignty, we have to look upon it as 2i political 
institution and to explain almost every step in its career on 
political grounds. Its history exhibits the worst features of 
intrigue, and the most unblushing knavery, displayed chiefly 
in the forgery of documents to sustain its enormous pre- 
tensions. 

The popes could never have succeeded but for the gross 
ignorance and superstition which for many centuries covered 
the European nations like a thick cloud ; for spiritual des- 
potism can only be exercised over an ignorant and super- 
stitious people. 

Another important step was made by the pope in the 
direction of temporal influence, when he assumed to himself 
the right of nomination to the imperial throne. The fierce 
and bloody war that broke out between the posterity of 
Charlemagne, after the death of Lewis II., first furnished 
him with an opportunity of exercising this pretended right. 
He obtained new concessions and large sums of money, by 
appointing successively, Charles the Bold, Carloman, and 



Review of the Development of the Papacy, 257 

Charles the Fat. After the death of these Emperors, the 
empire was rent in pieces ; the greatest confusion reigned 
everywhere, and the highest bidder was generally raised to 
the Imperial throne by the greedy pontiffs. 

The popes, in this confused state of things, made mighty 
strides in their course towards universal dominion. Their in- 
fluence, in civil affairs, rose in a short time to an extravagant 
height, by the favour of kings and princes, on whose 
behalf they had employed the authority superstition had 
given them over the minds of the people. From the same 
causes, their dominion in religious matters made equal pro- 
gress. From the time of Lewis the Meek, the ancient rules 
of ecclesiastical government were gradually changed in the 
West. The princes lost that influence in Church-matters 
which they had exercised since Charlemagne, the bishops 
their independence, and the general and provincial councils 
their authority. By every means in his power, the pope 
endeavoured to persuade all that he was the supreme legis- 
lator and universal bishop of the Church ; that all bishops 
derived their powers from him ; that all councils, both 
general and provincial, had no authority but from him, and 
could do nothing without his permission and consent. 

Of course all these pretensions were advanced at favour- 
able opportunities, when the minds of the people had been 
sufficiently prepared and seemed ripe for their reception. 
But it was not to be expected that so thorough a change 
in the government of the Church could be made without a* 
certain amount of opposition. The bishops of Rome were 
aware that their word and authority alone were not sufficient 
to introduce the new order of things. They knew that they 
must produce ancient documents by which they might 

17 



258 Roman Catholicism, 

justify their course. And as there were no such documentfif 
in existence, they forged them. 

Forgery was not a new art to the E-oman pontiffs. They 
had forged documents before the ninth century, and had 
been successful. Rome had been habituated to it by a long 
series of systematic fabrications extending back to the sixth 
century. To glorify the Roman see, spurious Acts of Roman 
Martyrs began to be compiled, at the beginning of the sixth 
century, and were produced from time to time, afterwards, 
for some centuries. For a similar purpose the story of the 
Conversion and Baptism of Constantine was invented, to 
make Pope Sylvester appear to have been a worker of 
miracles. About 514 the Acts of the Council of Sinuessa, The 
Legend of Pope Marcellinus, and the Constitution of Sylvester 
were forged to prove that no one could judge the Roman see. 
The Gesta Liherii and the Gesta of Sextus III. were fabri- 
cated in defence of these popes. The works of St. Cyprian 
were interpolated to suit the pretensions of the Roman 
bishop. The Liber Pontificalis was another forgery, com- 
menced in the sixth century, and continued afterwards. It 
was devised to prove the " Acts of the Roman Martyrs," to 
confirm the existing legends about popes and emperors, and 
to exhibit the popes as legislators for the whole Church. 
After the middle of the eighth century the famous Donation 
of Constantine was eoncocted at Rome, in order to induce 
Pepin to concede temporal sovereignty to the bishop of 
Rome. Other fabrications appeared soon afterwards, for 
the purpose of persuading Charlemagne and his successors to 
confirm and enlarge the temporal power. 

We may say, therefore, that Rome was the hot-bed of for- 
gery and continued so for several centuries. When the popes 
gf the ninth century desired to give credit to their new ecclesi^ 



Review of the Development of the Papacy, 259 

astical code, they were not at any loss for documents. They 
forged them ; nay, they were ready at hand ; and had 
already been forged for them. A writer in the west of Gaul 
— about 845 — desirous of protecting the bishops against the 
metropolitans and secular princes, fabricated a large number 
of pretended decrees of popes, acts of councils, and other 
documents. He prefixed to them the venerated name of 
Isidore, bishop of Seville, in order to make it appear that this 
great man had collected them. He completely failed of his 
purpose ; for the collection, instead of freeing the bishops, 
completely enslaved them. 

These spurious decretals became a powerful instrument in 
the hands of Nicholas I. (858-867) in pushing the limits of the 
Roman supremacy to the point of absolute monarchy. This 
bold and aspiring pontiff met the doubts of the Frankish 
bishops, who opposed them, with the assurance that these 
documents and all others ever issued by his predecessors 
were preserved with honour in the Roman archives. And 
in a synod held at Rome (863) he anathematized all who 
should refuse to receive the teaching or ordinances of a pope. 

Hence these pseudo-Isidorian decretals became the found- 
ation of the papal claims to supreme dominion. ISTever, in 
all history, has a forgery been so successful. For three 
centuries now, this huge fraud has been exposed, not only by 
Protestant, but also by Roman Catholic scholars ; yet the 
principles it introduced have taken such deep root in the 
Chui'ch, that the exposure of the fraud has produced no 
tangible effect in shaking the papal system. 

After the seeds of the new ecclesiastical code had thus 
been sown by Nicholas I. a blight seems to have fallen upon 
the papacy for the next two hundred years. With scarcely an 
exception, the popes of this period were so many monsters. 



260 Roman Catholicism. 

not men, pretending to be heads of the Church and con- 
secrated to the service of religion. They were guilty of the 
most flagitious crimes, as Roman Catholics themselves admit. 
The Roman see became the prey and plaything of rival 
factions of nobles and even of dissolute women. For a long 
time, the Tuscan counts made the pontificate hereditary 
in their family. Again and again profligate boys occupied 
and disgraced the Roman see, until, at length, when three 
popes were contending for the papal chair, the Emperor 
Henry III. put an end to the scandal by elevating a German 
bishop to the papacy. 

With Leo IX. commenced the Hildebrandine era of the 
papacy. Two centuries had elapsed since Nicholas I., on the 
basis of the pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, had introduced a new 
ecclesiastical code. In the state of corruption and ignorance 
which followed, the seed had taken firm root in the Church. 
Everyone now accepted the false decretals as authentic and 
true ; yet the Church lay prostrate. The evil must be 
remedied ; and a still greater concentration of power in the 
Roman pontiff, by the establishment of an absolute spiritual 
monarchy was looked upon as the only remedy. A power- 
ful party was formed in the Church, of which Hildebrand was 
the leader, which laboured with all its might to weld together 
all the Christian states into a theocratic priest-kingdom, with 
the pope at its head. It was the aim of this party not only 
to render the pope the absolute and supreme monarch in all 
spiritual matters, as bishop of bishops, but also to make him 
the king of kings and to emancipate the Church altogether 
from the control of princes and people. It was held that he 
possessed the power of creating and deposing kings, and of 
giving away whole kingdoms to whomsoever he pleased. 
Hildebrand was the adviser of Leo IX., and his immediate 



Review of the Development of the Papacy. 261 

^successors. At his instigation, Nicholas II. gave Calabria 
and Sicily to Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia, on condition 
that, as a faithful vassal, he should acknowledge an inviolable 
allegiance and fealty to the Roman see. There was no 
earthly reason justifying this act, except that the pope had 
the whole universe for his domain. He, also, advised the 
same pontiff to give the election of the pope altogether into 
the hands of the cardinals and to deprive the emperor and 
the people of any voice in the matter. 

Hildebrand succeeded Alexander II., and assumed the title 
of Gregory YII. I shall say nothing, in this brief outline, of 
his character \ for it is well known to every reader of history. 
" None of his predecessors is like unto him. If they had 
ambitious ends in view, they never rose to the highest 
pinnacle in their pretensions, nor did they set them forth 
with sufficient clearness and distinctness j their aims were 
high, but hazy and confused. But Gregory YII. knew what 
he was about. He alone of all the popes may be said to 
have had the clear and determinate purpose of introducing a 
new constitution for the Church and by new means. Nicholas 
I. alone approaches him in this, but none of the later popes, 
all of whom have only followed him as their leader and 
carried out the plans which he laid down." 

" Gregory saw from the first that synods regularly held by 
the popes, and new codes of Church law, were the means for 
introducing the new system. Synods had been held, at his 
suggestion, by Leo IX. and his successors, and he himself 
carried on the work in those assembled after 1073. But only 
popes and their legates were henceforth to hold synods ; in 
every other form the institution was to disappear. Gregory 
collected about him by degrees the right men for elaborating 
his system of Church-law. Anselm of Lucca, nephew of 



262 Roman Catholicism. 

Alexander II., compiled a most important and comprehensive 
work, at Ms command, between 1080 and 1086. Anselm 
may be called the founder of the new Gregorian system of 
Church-law, first, by extracting and putting into convenient 
working shape everything in the Isidorian forgeries service- 
able to the papal absolutism ; next, by altering the law of 
the Church, through a tissue of fresh inventions and inter- 
polations, in accordance with the requirements of his party 
and from the stand-point of Gregory. Then came Deusdedit, 
"whom Gregory made a cardinal, with fresh inventions. At 
the same time Bonizo compiled his work, the main object of 
which was to exalt the papal prerogative. The forty pro- 
positions or titles of this part of his work correspond entirely 
to Gregory's JDictatics and the materials supplied by Anselm 
and Deusdedit. The last great work of the Gregorians 
(before Gratian) was the Polycarpus of Cardinal Gregory of 
Pavia (before 1118), which almost always adheres to Anselm 
in its falsifications." (The Pope and the Council^ hy Janus f 
page 82.) 

" Clearly and cautiously as the Gregorian party went to 
work, they lived in a world of dreams and illusions about the 
past and about remote countries. They could not escape the 
imperative necessity of demonstrating their new system to 
have been the constant practice of the Church, and it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish where involuntary 
delusion merged into conscious deceit. Whatever present 
exigencies required was selected from the mythical stores at 
their command hastily and recklessly ; then fresh inventions 
were added, and soon every claim of Rome could be shown 
to have a legitimate foundation in existing records and 
decrees." (Ibid., page 84-) 

" It is so far true to say, that without the pseudo-Isidore 



Review of the Development of the Papacy, 263 

tliere would have been no Gregory YII., that the Isidorian 
forgeries were the broad foundation upon which the Grego- 
rians built. But the first object of Isidore was to secure the 
impunity of bishops, whereas the Koman party — which for 
a long time had a majority of the bishops against it — wanted 
to introduce a state of things in which the popes or their 
legates could summarily depose bishops, intimidate them, 
and reduce them to. complete subjection to the papal behests. 
The newly invented doctrines about the deposing power con- 
tributed to this end. In a word, a new history and a new 
civil and canon law were required, and both had to be 
obtained by improving on the Isidorian principles with new 
forgeries. The corruption of history was to some extent 
provided for in Germany by the monk Bernold, and in Italy 
by the zealous Gregorian Bonizo, bishop of Piacenza, who 
tried, among other things, to get rid of the coronation of 
Charles the Great. The other assistants had to invent or 
adapt historical facts for party purposes, for their new codes 
of Church-law innovated largely upon ancient Church- 
precedent. Gregory himself had his own little stock of 
fabricated or distorted facts to support, pretensions and under- 
takings which seemed to his contemporaries strange and 
unauthori^d." 

" At the same time Gregory thought it most important, 
with all his legislative activity, lofty claims, and high-handed 
measures, not to seem too much of an innovator and despot ; 
he constantly affirmed that he only wished to restore the 
ancient laws of the Church and to abolish recent abuses. 
When he drew out the whole system of papal omnipotence 
in twenty-seven theses in his Dictatus, those theses were 
partly repetitions or corollaries of the Isidorian decretals ; 
but, on the other hand, he and his friends and allies sought 



264 Roman Catholicism. 

to give them the appearance of tradition and antiquity by 
new fictions." (Jhid., page 84-86). 

We might continue quoting from this erudite work and 
show how, by the aid of well-fabricated forgeries, Gregory 
and his co-workers imposed their new constitution upon the 
Church. 

Nor was he remiss in enforcing his claims, with all bold- 
ness and against all opposition. Whenever it appeared 
possible, he endeavoured to engage in the bonds of allegiance 
to the Roman see the kings and princes of Christendom. 
Here he met with strong opposition, but nevertheless proved 
successful in a number of cases. 

It was the policy of this haughty and imperious pontiff to 
resort constantly to extreme measures in enforcing his 
decrees against abuses. Thus, to eradicate the vice of concu- 
binage from among the clergy, he enforced complete celibacy, 
punishing not only the guilty but also the innocent, by com- 
pelling them to send away their lawful wives, without delay. 
By thus destroying all family-ties of the clergy, he thought to 
render them more devoted to the Church ; but it cannot be 
questioned that enforced celibacy has been a fruitful cause 
of immorality in the Church of Rome. 

Moreover, in order to repress the vice of simony connected 
with the investiture of bishops and abbots who held temporal 
domains, he adopted the extreme measure of depriving the 
emperor, kings and princes of all voice and control in nomi- 
nating to vacant bishoprics and benefices. And when the 
emperor Henry IV. resisted the most odious provisions of 
the papal decree, Gregory deposed him, absolving his sub- 
jects from the oath of allegiance, and treating him in the most 
shameful manner. At the pope's instigation, another emperor 
was elected and confirmed by him. Thus the whole empire 



Review of the Development of the Papacy. 265 

was plunged into the horrors of a civil war, which lasted for 
many years. In a word, the whole activity of this unscrupu- 
lous but powerful pope was employed not only in t3rranniz- 
ing over all orders of the Church, but also in aiming deadly 
blows at the thrones of emperors, kings, and princes. His 
pontificate was a continual scene of tumult and bloodshed, all 
occasioned by his ambitious arrogance. 

From Gregory YII. to Boniface YIII. (1073-1294) the 
papacy was at the zenith of its power and glory. It is the 
golden period of papal supremacy over Church and State. 
They acted as lords of the universe, establishing kingdoms 
and giving them away at pleasure, deposing emperors and 
kings and absolving subjects from the oath of allegiance; 
and stirring up the most deadly wars wherever their 
authority was contradicted. They endeavoured, by all 
means at their command, to make the whole world a theo- 
cratic priest-kingdom ; and we may truly affirm that the 
Homan pontifis were at the bottom of nearly all the wars 
which deluged Europe with blood, during this period of papal 
absolutism. A desperate struggle was going on between the 
empire and the priesthood, the popes advancing their mon- 
strous pretensions with characteristic power and cunning ; 
the emperors and princes, on the other hand, using their 
utmost effi)rts to disconcert their measures and to curb their 
power. The effect of these unhappy dissensions was felt 
throughout all the European nations. Who, we ask, is 
answerable for the cruel civil wars that were caused by the 
deposition of emperors and kings, and the absolving of sub- 
jects from, the oath of allegiance, but the haughty bishops of 
Kome % What else caused the long and bitter contests be- 
tween the Guelphs and Ghibellines, but the determined reso- 
lution of the popes to establish and maintain their lordly 



266 Roman Catholicism. 

ascendancy? And who, in countries beyond the limits of 
the Roman empire, were the chief instigators of political 
conspiracies, who fomented civil strife and contention, but 
the Roman pontiffs who were everywhere present, through 
the agency of crafty and unscrupulous emissaries and legates ? 
Let the impartial student of history answer. 

Roman Catholics justify the deposing power of the pope 
and his constant interference in the secular government of 
kingdoms, on the pretext that it formed part of the interna- 
tional law of those times 3 that it was a right accorded to 
him by the European nations : in a word, that the pope was 
looked upon as a sort of international king and as the uni- 
versal arbitrator between contending parties. 

We answer that this justification contradicts the plainest 
facts of history. No ; the secular governments, far from 
according to the popes this power, strenuously resisted it ; 
hence those wars and tumults. On the other hand, the popes 
claimed it as a sacred right inherent in their office as heads 
of the Church. They cherished it as a token and evidence 
of the plentitude of their power. The bulls — and they are 
numerous — in which they assert and exercise this pretended 
power, do not utter the language of a mere arbitrator, whose 
authority depends on the consent of the contending parties. 
Consent of the contending parties, indeed ! Why, it was the 
pope himself who in most cases occasioned disputes, by his 
encroaching and ambitious pretensions, and then used the 
lash on the party that contradicted him. It was the pope 
who claimed as his possessions and fiefs all the kingdoms of 
the world, by virtue of his supreme headship over the 
Church. It was the pope who, under the pretext of his in- 
herent power, created new kingdoms, and appointed kings 
and princes over them It was the pope who asserted that none 



Review of the Development of the Papacy. 267 

could rule without his consent, approval, and supervision. 
There is no semblance of any international law, during the 
period of the papal ascendancy, nominating the pope an arbi- 
trator between the nations. True, they often did good by 
their timely and opportune interference in secular matters, 
in those distracted times \ but we cannot shut our eyes to 
the immense mischief they inflicted on the superstitious and 
long-sufiering peoples of Europe. Most certainly they laid 
claim to this immense power solely in virtue of their office. 

But to return to our narrative. Let us touch upon the 
principal features of the development of the papacy, during 
the period of its highest splendour. 

After the death of Gregory VII., the same restless 
element continued to disturb both Church and state. The 
policy, which he had inaugurated, of introducing a new con- 
stitution into the Church, and of rendering the papacy 
supreme in all matters, both ecclesiastical and temporal, was 
steadily and unflinchingly pursued by his successors. The 
contest about investitures went on with unabated bitterness. 
Urban II. was not behind Gregory in arrogance and pride \ 
h(3 even surpassed him in bold and audacious measures. In 
tlie famous council of Clermont, where he kindled a new 
war against the Mohammedan possessors of the Holy Land, 
he published a law forbidding the bishops and the rest of the 
clergy to take the oath of allegiance to their respective 
sovereigns. 

Paschal 11. was another instance of insatiable and in- 
flexible papal ambition. He not only renewed the extreme 
measures of his predecessors against investitures and the ex- 
communications against Henry lY. ; but it is believed that 
he instigated an unnatural son of this unhappy and pope- 
persecuted emperor to rebel against his father and to ascend 



268 Roman Catholicism. 

the imperial throne under the name of Henry V. It is, at 
least, unquestionably certain that Paschal II. dissolved the 
oath of allegiance which Henry had taken to his father, and 
adopted the cause of this unnatural rebel. 

During the space of fifty-five years, after the death of 
Gregory YII., the papal chair was occupied by monks who 
governed like monks. ISTot only were they of obscure birth 
and of unbounded avarice and ambition, but as heads of the 
Church, they displayed that unbending temper and obstinacy, 
which are essential ingredients in the character of a monk. 
It was not until Guy, archbishop of Vienna, duke of Bur- 
gundy, and a near relative of the emperor, a man of an 
ingenuous and magnanimous character and liberal education, 
was raised to the papal throne, under the name of Calixtus 
II. (in 1120), that the question concerning investitures was 
finally settled. A little moderation was all that was re- 
quired for this purpose. If his predecessors had possessed 
even a modicum of that quality, torrents of blood and thou- 
sands of valuable lives would have been saved. 

The contest between the emperors and popes was renewed 
under Hadrian IV. (in 1155), a native of England, whose 
former name was Nicholas Breakspear ; it increased in 
vehemence under Alexander III., who loaded the emperor 
Frederick Barbarossa with anathemas and execrations, de- 
posed him in the year 1167, and exhorted his subjects to 
shake oflp the yoke. Alexander's success, in his contest with 
the proud emperor raised the papacy to an enormous height. 
This pope, like some of his predecessors, exercised the pre- 
tended right of erecting new kingdoms, by conferring the 
title of king upon Alfonso I., duke of Portugul. 

But the papacy reached the highest pitch of power under 
Innocent III., who became pope in the year 1198. Circum- 



Review of the Development of the Papacy. 269 

stances enabled him to enlarge Ms own immediate temporal 
dominion, the states of the Church. He claimed to be the 
supreme lord over all kingdoms ; and whenever a favourable 
opportunity presented itself, he asserted this outrageous claim. 
He gave a King to the Armenians; and, in 1204, erected 
Bohemia into a kingdom, and bestowed the royal dignity 
upon Primislaus. He appointed the Duke of Bulgaria and 
Wallachia king over that territory, and crowned Peter II. 
king of Arragon. But above all, he endeavoured to 
exercise lordship over the emperor and other powerful kings 
of Europe. And when these princes resisted his ambitious 
and overbearing interference, he hurled sentences of excom- 
munication and depositions against them, which took terrible 
effect in desolation and bloodshed. No monarch felt more 
severely the galling despotism of this haughty pontiff than 
John, surnamed Sans Terre, king of England. 

Thus the papacy went on in its glory, acquiring constantly 
new power and consolidating what it had acquired, up to the 
time of Boniface YIII. in 1294. This arrogant pontiff car- 
ried the pretensions of the papacy to a height somewhat akin 
to frenzy. His bulls are an everlasting monument of the 
abuse of spiritual power, of monstrous pretension and undis- 
guised absolutism. But Philip the Fair, king of France, 
knew how to subdue the pretentious pope ; and after his 
death the papal residence was transferred to Avignon, where 
it remained for seventy years. 

Let us pause here for a moment and enquire into the 
causes which, after Gregory YII., mainly contributed to in- 
crease and consolidate the absolutism of the popes. 

The revival of the Boman law in the twelfth century af- 
forded an excuse to the Boman pontiffs and their adherents 
for having the canon law placed on the same honourable 



270 Roman Catholicism. 

footing. With this view, Gratian, a Benedictine monk 
of Bologna, about 1130, composed an epitome of canon law 
for the use of schools. Gratian made this collection from the 
Isidorian forgeries, and from the writings of those who as- 
sisted Hildebrand in introducing the new Church constitu- 
tion. It goes by the name of Decretum Gratiani. And as 
it had for its object the establishment and justification of 
papal absolutism, it was patronized by the popes, although it 
abounded in the grossest errors. Almost immediately after 
its appearance, it became the standard work on canon law 
and its authority was appealed to as final. No book has 
contributed more towards advancing the absolute power of 
the popes than this consolidation of forgeries. Several other 
books of papal decrees were afterwards appended by different 
popes, so as to make the collection of the corpus juris canonici 
complete. Canon-law became the favourite study of the 
clergy ; and all who sought to obtain ecclesiastical preferment 
in the Roman curia, were required to be proficients in this 
science. All the so-called learning, thus disseminated, 
worked in the interest of the papal system ; for every part 
of the canon-law made for Rome and gave renewed power to 
the pope. 

The crusades, which were carried on during this period of 
papal splendour, brought with them a new source of influence 
to the Roman pontiffs. The whole of Europe felt an earnest 
interest in these holy wars. The popes were]their anima- 
ting soul ; they appointed the leaders, awarded privileges to 
the crusaders, and adjusted the system of penances and in- 
dulgences. They were the superiors of those powerful mili- 
tary orders which originated during the period of the crusades 
and spread their ramifications throughout Europe. All this 
gave additional weight to the authority of the popes, 



Review of the Development of the Papacy, 271 

Moreover, the two great universities of the world, Paris 
and Bologna, which were in the hands of the monks, the 
faithful allies of the popes, were under complete papal con- 
trol and performed their part in advancing the power of the 
spiritual monarchy. Then again the new religious orders of 
mendicant friars contributed more effectually perhaps than 
any other agency to undermine the old Church-system and 
to introduce the new order of things, in which they were to 
rule together with the pope. The most absolute and over- 
bearing popes were monks themselves, and had nothing in 
common with the bishops and parish-priests. 

After the removal of the papal residence to Avignon, the 
authority of the popes commenced to decline. Then followed 
the long schism of forty years, which still further lowered it 
in the estimation of Christendom. The councils of Con- 
stance and Basle healed the schism, by declaring the general 
council, ^.e. the Church, superior to the popes. The newly 
elected pope, Martin Y., and his successor, Eugenius IV., 
approved these decrees, and thus condemned in advance the 
recent Vatican council. 

But why did not the nations throw off the yoke of the 
papacy since they had so bitterly experienced the curse it 
had brought on all Christendom ] Alas ! they were not yet 
ripe for that important step \ they were still too much tram- 
meled by ecclesiastical traditionalism : in a word, they knew 
no other Church-system than the papacy. They knew that it 
had deeply fallen, and that it was the fruitful source of dis- 
cord and corruption in the Church, but they fancied that it 
could be reformed. 

Reformed ! They were deceived ; the papacy is irreform- 
able, for a pestilential and intoxicating air seems to surround 
the papal throne. So soon as they had set it on its legs 



272 Roma7i Catholicism. 

again, so soon as it was able to stand, it kicked against the 
reforming decrees and tendencies of these councils and re- 
pudiated their authority. A papal reaction took place 
almost immediately, which resisted every attempt at reform. 
The papacy relapsed into its former corruption. Christendom 
was compelled to see the papal throne occupied by an Alex- 
ander VI., who scandalized the Church by the most notorious 
crimes and degrading vices, and was infinitely worse than any 
pope who flourished during the pornocracy of the eleventh 
century. The papal yoke became more galling than ever. 

Hence we are not astonished that, when the humble and 
resolute monk of Wittenberg raised his eloquent voice boldly 
against the papacy, millions were ready to join him in the 
noble crusade. The reformation inflicted a severe, but not 
deadly, blow on the papacy. Its absolutism was crippled ; 
but it entered on a new path of pretension. Henceforth the 
claim to infallibility was set forth as the panacea for curing 
all its ills, as a means of regaining the ground it had lost 
and of inspiring the members of the Church with renewed 
confidence. Let us consider this claim in our next lecture. 

Men and brethren, does not the history of the develop- 
ment of the papacy clearly show that the Christian Church 
as an outward and visible institution is not endowed with the 
gift of infallibility % History teaches that the papacy is a 
huge imposition — a glaring lie. The Church sanctioned this 
monster lie and became identified with it. How can any one 
maintain, after this, that she is infallible ? The very exist- 
ence of the papacy within the Church, nay, at the very head 
of the Church is the strongest refutation of the doctrine of 
Church infallibility.. 



LECTUBE V, 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PAPAL 
INFALLIBILITY, 

IN our last two lectures, we considered the principal features 
in the development of papal absolutism, and saw how 
from small beginnings it grew to be an all-absorbing power. 
But mere absolutism does not close the history of papal 
development. Secular power may rest when it has reached 
the apex of despotism, and rely on its might. But spiritual 
absolutism has no raison d^etre and no reasonable and firm 
hold on the conscience, unless it lays claim to the gift of 
infallibility. Inerrancy must needs be the foundation of an 
absolute spiritual monarchy. 

The popes knew and felt this exigency. Hence we observe 
that, from the very beginning, and whilst they were aiming 
at universal and supreme dominion, they put forth also their 
claim to infallibility, timidly and obscurely at first, but with 
gradually increasing firmness afterwards. 

Cii'cumstances favoured their efibrts to obtain absolute 
power, but the Church's acknowledgment and endorsement 
of their personal infallibility remained unconceded ; indeed, 
the Church resisted this claim. She had discovered, by bitter 
experience, that papal absolutism was the source of all her 
ills. Whence arose that scandalous condition of the papacy, 
commonly called the Koman pornocracy, and the conseq^uen 

18 



274 Reman Catholicism. 

prostration of the Church which commenced with the preten- 
sions of Nicholas I. and lasted for more than two centuries, 
but from the intoxication of absolute power % Whence those 
civil broils, and those torrents of blood, under such popes as 
Gregory YII., Paschal II., Alexander III., Innocent III., 
Boniface YIII., and others, but from the abuse of papal 
absolutism] Whence the many schisms, especially the 
long one lasting forty years, but from the excessive thirst of 
the popes for despotic power 1 What do the Councils of 
Constance and Basle mean, but a rising of the Church 
above the prevailing absolutism of the papacy, and a stern 
resolve to apply the remedy to abuses ? Where would the 
popedom now be, into what fearful abyss would it have sunk, 
had not the Church come to its rescue, in the Council of Con- 
stance, by proving herself superior to it and claiming her 
pristine rights % But alas ! the Church was too feeble ; and 
papal absolutism had taken too deep root. She only clipped 
the wings of the papacy; they soon grew again, and its 
pretensions became as vigorous and lofty as ever whilst the 
Church appeared to sink more and more into hopeless cor- 
ruption. 

But no ! God is with her. She suffered and lay prostrate 
but she will rise again. Whence those mighty risings of the 
sixteenth century "i Whence the grand upheaval of the 
Beformation ? It is the Church which is in the agonies of 
new birth. She is wrestling to be free from the intolerable 
yoke of papal despotism. She comes out from the popedom 
and leaves it far behind in the gloom of the past. She can- 
not convert it to the truth, nor is she able to destroy it ) for 
it is too wealthy and too mighty in temporal resources ; in 
short, it is a kingdom of this world. 

All that she can do is to protest against its absolutism and 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility, 275 

corruption. But her protest is powerless and the papacy 
remains. Too many have a worldly interest wrapped up in 
its continued existence. It persecutes, and wages cruel wars 
against the Keformation ; it calls to its aid the bloody 
inquisition, and where the reformed Churches cannot be 
reached by open hostility, it sends out its secret emissaries 
to intrigue or sow the seeds of discord amongst them. 

Secret emissaries ! yes, Rome has always had its secret 
emissaries. From the very beginning of popedom, the monks 
have been its faithful allies and secret tools. They always 
acknowledged in the pope their absolute master and liberal 
patron. From him and through him they enjoyed honour, 
wealth, immunities, and privileges. If it had not been for 
the monks, there would be no papal absolutism. If the old 
orders proved unequal to new emergencies, new ones were 
called into existence. 

Thus, at the time of the Reformation, the order of the 
Jesuits took its rise to assist the papacy against its enemies, 
and to defend its threatened cause. No order of monks was 
ever so well adapted to secure the final triumph of hierarchical 
monarchy as the Society of Jesus. They received within 
their body none but those who could be made really useful 
— they discarded altogether the proverbial laziness of the 
monks. Only men of more than ordinary talent and genius 
were accepted within their ranks. Their policy was prudence, 
but that prudence soon degenerated into craftiness and 
cunning. Their guiding and supreme purpose was to advance 
the interests of the Roman Church both within and with- 
out her pale. They went forth as zealous missionaries to the 
Indies and the new World ; and we find them in Protestant 
countries, in all disguises, like cunning serpents, struggling 
to undo the work of the Reformation. We cannot deny that 



276 Roman Catholicism. 

Jesuitism has been the greatest foe of Protestantism and are 
forced to acknowledge that on many occasions it has proved 
only too successful in its assaults. 

But within the pale of the Roman Church itself the Jesuits 
have been a mighty power. The question of papal infallibi- 
lity has been, par excellence, their question ; they espoused it 
with all their indomitable energy and brought it to a success- 
ful issue, after toiling long to prepare the Church's mind for 
its dogmatic definition. It would have been wholly incon- 
sistent with the principles of their order to acquiesce in any 
half-and-half views on the question of papal infallibility. 
The Jesuit is bound to yield a blind obedience to his superiors ; 
he undergoes a severe novitiate in which he is trained to 
this perfect submission of his will. He sees the highest 
perfection of piety in submitting his understanding to that ol 
another ; the highest sacrifice, according to his views, and 
the sacrifice most acceptable to God, consists in surrendering 
intellect and will in blind subjection to another. The Jesuit 
order is modelled after the Roman hierarchy ; what the pope 
is in the Church, that the general is in the order. And as 
the highest perfection of the Jesuit consists in yielding his 
intellect and will blindly to the commands of his general, so 
he holds that every good member of the Church should 
likewise believe blindly whatever the pope teaches, and 
unreservedly obey what he commands. 

The very nature of the Jesuit order necessarily requires 
extreme absolutism in the Church ; and every Jesuit must 
unavoidably be an ardent advocate of papal infallibility. In 
his eyes, every restriction of the pope's authority is an abomi- 
nation ; every opposition to his teaching, Luciferian pride. 
According to him, every Christian is bound to submit 
his understanding and will to the pope ; and the bishops 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 277 

especially ought to b6 foremost in this submission as patterns 
to their flocks. The Jesuit makes this sacrifice twice, first 
to the pope, then to his general. 

Cardinal Pallavicini, one of their order, reduced the doc- 
trine of the Jesuits, on this point, to a clear and definite 
formula when he taught, " that the collective Church is a 
body inanimate when alone and without the pope, but 
informed by the pope with a soul.'* (Storia del Con, di. Fr, 
I. 103). " To this soul, therefore, i. e., to the pope, belongs 
dominion over the whole Christian world ; he is its monarch 
and lord, and his authority is the foundation, the uniting 
bond, and moving intelligence of all ecclesiastical govern^ 
ment.*^ (Ibid., I. 107). The Infallibist doctrine could not be 
expressed more definitely than by saying that the whole 
Christian world has but one thinking, moving, and volitional 
soul, and that soul the pope. 

The Jesuits, therefore, became the out-and-out champions 
of the infallibility theory. Prior to the existence of the 
Jesuit order, the doctrine of papal infallibility was hazy, 
vague, and nebulous ; the Jesuit theologians brought it into 
clear and definite shape and formulated it; and in their 
treatises on dogmatic theology it occupied a conspicuous 
place. It cannot be denied that the men who stood forth as 
its champions were eminent for their talents and learning ; 
but it is not the less true that they were crafty and unscru- 
pulous. Cardinal Bellarmine, the greatest Jesuit divine, 
after philosophizing at length on the nature of the pope's 
authority and its relation to the Church, has no better argu- 
ments for papal infallibility than those drawn from the 
pseudo-Isidorian forgeries and kindred fabrications, to which 
we referred in our last lecture. He made a copious use of 
thejie spurious documents. It is difficult to believe in the 



278 Roman Catholicism. 

* 

entire good faith and sincerity of Bellarmine, because a man 
of his ability and scholarship could hardly have been so 
blindly credulous. However that may be, Bellarmine's 
arguments are based on forgeries, fabrications, and interpola- 
tions of the fathers. A rigorous censorship was established 
in Eome by which every work that pointed out or admitted 
that these testimonies were spurious, was condemned and 
suppressed. The inquisition and the index lihrorum pro- 
hibitorum were believed in Kome to be sufficiently powerfui 
to suppress criticism and Church history, or, at least, to con- 
ceal from the mass of the clergy the fact that these documents 
were spurious. 

In order to imbue the clergy with a high veneration for the 
papal see, and to instil into their minds the belief in infalli- 
bility, a number of ancient popes, with proper offices and 
lessons were introduced into the breviary ; and all these 
pious readings were extracted from the papal fabrications 
and legends. 

And as if this were not enough, Cardinal Baronius, the 
Jesuit Church-historian, who received authority from the 
pope to re-edit the Roman martyrology, manipulated this 
work in a truly Jesuitical manner, correcting those portions 
that might engender suspicions dangerous to papal absolut- 
ism and infallibility, and adding from spurious documents 
anything that might tend to the glorification of the papacy. 
In fact, this work, the " Annals of the Church" compiled by 
this talented and laborious Jesuit, forms a vast repertory of 
spurious passages and fictions. Other famous Jesuits, such 
as Maldonatus, Suarez, &c., &c., adopted the same tactics of 
defence, and made copious use of the pseudo-Isidorian decre- 
tals and other fictitious documents to prove their thesis of 
papal infallibility. Indeed, they seem to have observed 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 279 
with slavish fidelity the maxim that " the end justifies the 



means.^^ 



It may thus be easily explained how within a very short 
period after the spread of the Jesuit order the hypothesis of 
papal infallibility had made such rapid progress. Their 
advocacy of infallibility was infectious; they were active 
and energetic ; and were regarded as the champions of 
Roman Catholicism, raised by a special providence to defend 
and uphold the Church against her enemies. They esta- 
blished colleges in all E-oman Catholic countries, from a 
shrewd and far-seeing determination to attract the youth to 
their schools and to train them in their particular views on 
papal infallibility. Their text-books on dogmatic theology 
were of a superior character, and soon found their way into 
many clerical colleges and seminaries. No wonder, then, 
that the doctrine of infallibility spread very rapidly. 

But there was one obstacle in the way of this infallibility- 
doctrine, which it was not easy to overcome. Every enquirer 
and reader of history discovered some papal decisions of a 
yery doubtful and indefensible character ; others contradicted 
older doctrines laid down by popes or generally received in 
the Church. How were these contradictions to be recon- 
ciled'? It became necessary to ^ upon some distinctive 
marks by which a really infallible decision of the pope might 
be recognized. The Jesuits were not at a loss. They intro- 
duced the famous distinction of papal decisions promulgated 
ex cathedra. Such decisions alone were to be considered 
infallible. "We shall touch upon the difficulties with which 
this distinction is beset in another lecture. 

But had the Jesuits all the field to themselves, without 
opposition, I do not say from Protestants, but from Boman 
Catholics % No ; thinking Boman Catholics could not for- 
get the corruptions of papal absolutism and the calamities 



'^^0 Roman Catholicism. 

■with which it had afflicted the Church. The successors and 
descendants of those who had remedied the ills of the Church 
in the councils of Constance and Basle could not forget that 
these councils had clearly decreed the superiority of a general 
council over the pope, and that these decrees had been ac 
knowledged and confirmed by the popes themselves. All 
nations, except the Italian and Spanish, which were ruled by 
the Jesuits and intimidated by the Inquisition, opposed the 
iafallibility of the popes. These opponents of papal iner- 
rancy were called Gallicans, because the French divines took 
the lead in this opposition and formulated its distinctive 
principles. On the other hand, they called the Infallibilista 
Ultramontanes. 

Ever since the rise of the Jesuit order, a fierce theological 
war had gone on between the Gallican and Ultramontane 
schools. The Gallicans defended episcopal, and the Ultra- 
montanes papal infallibility. Both were wrong. The error 
of both was generically the same ; the disagreement was only 
specific. Both believed in the fiction of ecclesiastical iafalli- 
bility ; they differed merely in regard to the seat of that in- 
fallibility. According to the Gallicans, the bishops were in- 
fallible ; in the Ultramontane view, the head of the Church 
enjoyed that gift ; he is the active part and communicates 
his infallibility to the bishops who are the joas5^'ye recipients. 

The Jesuit hypothesis had many advantages over the 
Gallican theory. First, the advantage of logic. The Galli- 
cans taught the infallibility of the episcopal body and the 
superiority of an (Ecumenical council over the pope. The 
Ultramontanes would reply that if the collective body is in- 
fallible, the head which represents that body and forms its 
visible and permanent centre, must also be infallible. If the 
Gallicans maintained that the unity of the Church could be 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility, 281 

preserved and controversies of faith determined only by a 
general council, the Ultramontanes would urge the inex- 
pediency and insujS&ciency of such a means, as being only 
periodic and intermittent, and therefore they contended that 
only an easily accessible, ever watchful, and infallible centre 
could compass these ends. 

The Ultramontane doctrine had the pope himself on its 
side, which served considerably to increase the number of its 
adherents. Writers in favour of papal infallibility were 
sure to be rewarded with preferments of value and distinc- 
tion, whilst Gallicans would be left out in the cold and 
looked upon with suspicion. It was usual to raise the most 
distinguished advocates of infallibility to the papal throne. 
The popes, wherever possible, filled vacant bishoprics with 
loyal Infallibilists. More persistently than ever, in encycli- 
cals and bulls, they assumed the language and bearing of 
infallible heads and teachers of the Church, and the Koman 
Catholic world submissively bowed to their decisions and 
decrees. Every opportunity was taken to show forth to the 
world that the whole Church, with only an exception here 
and there, was unanimous in the belief that the pope was 
endowed with the prerogative of infallibility. On several 
occasions letters of the episcopate glorifying the papacy were 
collected into one volume and published to the world as so 
many documents establishing the universal belief in papal 
infallibility. The TJltramontanes proclaimed their doc- 
trine as proxima fidei, while they stigmatised the Gallican 
theory as proxima hceresi. 

Besides the all-powerful aid of the pope, whose favour is of 
vast importance to every bishop, the Infallibilists had the 
great advantage of perfect unity of sentiment and aim. 
That talented and energetic body, the Jesuits,, were the soul 



282 Roman Catholicism. 

of the whole movement. Perfectly united in themselves, 
they gathered all the scattered forces of the Church favour- 
able to their doctrine into a united phalanx. Crafty and 
prescient, by training and experience, they knew well how 
to go about their work and accomplish their purpose. Their 
religious literature teemed with treatises on the papal pre- 
rogative which were scattered far and wide. The periodical 
press was almost everywhere under Ultramontane control 
and inspiration. The Gallicans, on the contrary, had no cen- 
tral point uniting their forces scattered throughout the 
different countries. Distance, sectional and national divis- 
ions precluded them from communicating with each other and 
concerting a common plan of opposition. They published 
occasionally incontrovertible works against the Ultramon- 
tane doctrine, but they were almost invariably placed on the 
index lihrorum prohihitorum, and did not obtain the circula- 
tion they deserved. They had not the immense resources of 
the Infallibilists, and therefore were not in a position to 
secure the control of the periodical literature. The civil 
governments, moreover, which had formerly espoused their 
cause, were influenced by the political exigencies of the time 
to court the favour of Kome and to conclude Concordats 
which were unfavourable to the progress of their opinions. 

Nay, the very calamities which had befallen the Koman 
see since Napoleon I., instead of placing the infallibility doc- 
trine in the background, had the effect of giving it greater 
prominence. The humiliation and sufferings of the supreme 
pontiff elicited the sympathy of the Roman Catholic world 
and made it favourably inclined toward the claims of the 
papacy. Where the pope, formerly, in his proud superiority, 
had been opposed, he was now revered. 

With this humiliation of the papacy is intimately coa- 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 283 

nected the revival of the Jesuit order. The decree for its 
suppression issued by Clement XIV. was abrogated by Pius 
VII., and the Jesuits were re-instated in their former posi- 
tion. With their public reappearance on the ecclesiastical 
stage, the infallibility movement received a new impetus. 

The irreproachable lives and good character of the last 
few popes also favoured the movement. The former de- 
linquencies of the papacy began to be forgotten, and good 
Roman Catholics, looking upon the pope as their Most Holy 
Father^ would not needlessly contradict him. 

The belief, moreover, gained ground that, if the divisions 
between the two schools of theology were removed, and the 
now almost universally admitted doctrine of papal infallibility 
raised to the dignity of a dogma of faith which all members 
of the Church must believe under pain of excommunication 
and damnation, the afflictions of the pope would come to an 
end. For all true Homan Catholics would hesitate before 
wounding the heart of the infallible head of the Church, on 
whose teaching their faith and salvation depended. 

And if the pope were declared infallible by a general 
council, if he were sincerely believed to be the source of all 
orthodox belief, he must be independent of all political 
pressure, free from compulsion, untrammeled in the exercise 
of his high office ; in a word, he must be a temporal sovereign. 
For, how could the Homan Catholic world, composed as it is 
of many nations, of opposing interests and living under 
different forms of government, repose confidence in his teach- 
ing and spiritual government, if they suspected that he had 
been influenced by the government on which his peace and 
welfare as a citizen depended *? No ; if the pope is infallible 
— so they reasoned — he cannot be the citizen of any country ; 
his very office necessarily requires that he be an independent 



284 Roman Catholicism. 

sovereign. The states of the Church must be restored to 
him ; and it is the interest, nay the imperative duty of all 
Roman Catholic governments to support him in the peaceful 
possession of his temporal sovereignty. Thus the dogma of 
papal infallibility was held by the Ultramontanes to be 
inseparably connected with the temporal dominion of the 
pope. And this, we think, was one of the principal reasons 
why the Yatican council was convoked in 1870, and the 
hypothesis of infallibility raised to the dignity of a dogma 
binding on the conscience of all the members of the Church. 

The Ultramontane party was victorious, and the Galilean 
school was forever snuffed out of existence. Pius IX. put the 
apex upon the pyramid of the Roman hierarchy by proclaiming 
his own infallibility in matters of faith and morals. He 
reached the goal of all the ambitious aspirations of his prede- 
cessors. Roman Catholicism was changed into popery pure 
and simple. 

What became of the minority bishops, who were all men 
of superior attainments and had opposed the decree most 
strenuously during the council % Did they secede from the 
Church of Rome % Not a single one of them. They all 
submitted to the Yatican decrees. Yet, the facts and 
arguments which they submitted so clearly and forcibly, both 
before and during the council, against the personal infallibility 
of the pope more convincing and true. They could not be 
withdrawn or refuted. How is it, then, that these eminent 
men almost immediately changed sides and did violence to 
their conscientious convictions — the fruit, with many of them, 
of a thorough and life-long study % It was because they be- 
lieved in episcopal infallibility, that is the infallibility of an 
oecumenical council, and looking upon the Yatican council as 
an oecumenical one, they accepted, according to their own. 



Development of the Doctrine of Infallibility. 285 

theory, its decrees. They were at liberty to hold and defend 
their theory before and during the council, but not after its 
dogmatic utterance. Their maxim was, concilium locutum 
est J causa finita esU And in conformity with this maxim 
they submitted. 



LECTUEE VL 

THE VATICAN C0VNOIL,—THE INFALLIBILITY DEGREE 
IN TBE LIGHT OF REASON AND TRADITION 

THE Vatican council alone is in itself a complete refuta- 
tion, in a nutshell, of the whole system of Roman 
Catholicism, both Gallican and Ultramontane. It gives, un- 
doubtedly, the deathblow to Church-infallibility, the car- 
dinal doctrine of the Church of Rome ; for it sustains a fiction 
and evidently puts itself at variance with the older oecumeni- 
cal councils which, by no means, professed to depend on the 
bishop of Rome for their validity, but, on the contrary, 
assumed his liability to error, and actually condemned a 
pope as a heretic. It completely annuls the decrees of the 
councils of Constance and Basle which were summoned to 
put an end to the long schism and to remedy the evils of the 
Church. Certainly but for them the papacy itself would 
have committed suicide, perishing by its own corruption. 
If oecumenical councils thus contradict each other, they can- 
not be looked upon as endowed with infallibility. Indeed, 
we find nowhere that our Lord has promised infallibility to 
oecumenical councils ; His truth does not depend on numbers 
and majorities ; both the Bible and history teach us the con- 
trary. 

But if the Vatican council stultifies the Gallican theory, it 

no less shows the falsehood of Ultramontanism. The very 

.fact 01 this infallibility-decree having been made by a coun- 



Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition. 287 

cil demolishes the Ultramontane hypothesis. For the decree 
is not aimed against heretics, but is merely intended to 
settle theological (not dogmatic) differences between the two 
leading schools, which not only existed in the Church, but 
were tolerated ; and not only tolerated, but respected and 
honoured — each school counting alternately amongst its ad- 
herents the very occupants of the papal chair. Their differ- 
ences did not destroy any fundamental doctrine of the Church 
of Rome ; they were merely open questions on which the 
theologians could rove at full liberty. Now, how can a 
council declare that either the one or the other of such posi- 
tions was alioays, everywhere, and hy all held and believed as 
an article of faith, and that consequently the other thesis 
was always, everywhere, and by all believed to be heretical ? 
In that case would not the Church have been guilty of 
tolerating heresy, in allowing the opposite doctrine to be 
openly and freely taught from her pulpits, and in her schools 
and seminaries ? Would she not have been faithless to her 
duty of witness-bearer if she had allowed a cardinal doctrine 
like that of the infallibility of her head to be treated as an 
open question for so many centuries, and to remain so long an 
apple of discord among her talented and devoted sons % 

But I hear Koman Catholics say that an opportune time 
had not hitherto arrived for asserting it ; and that the mind 
of the Roman Catholic world was not ripe for the reception 
of such a definition. 

Opportune time ! Not ripe to believe a truth on which 
the very nature of the Church depends, on which all her 
faith, morals, and discipline hinge ! Not ripe 1 That means, 
that the TJltramontanes, with ambitious or deluded hopes at 
their head, had not sufficiently planned, plotted, and schemed 
to spread their doctrine, to imbue men's minds with it, and 



288 Roman Catholicism. 

to obtain a sufficient majority in a general council to raise it 
to the dignity of a dogma. Is it not, then, a sufficient con- 
demnation of Ultramontanism that this important dogma 
should have been decreed so late as the latter part of the 
nineteenth century ? 

Moreover, if the pope, as they suppose, was believed from 
the beginning to be personally infallible, what need was 
there of the Vatican council ? The assertion of the pope 
against gainsayers within the Church ought to have been 
sufficient. The calling together of a council for this purpose 
shows the weakness of the cause ; it manifests the universal 
belief that hitherto all dogmatic decrees had emanated from 
an oecumenical council, and that the papal assertion alone 
would not be binding or irreformable in its nature. The 
necessity of such a council for such a purpose, in whatever 
light you may view it, destroys the pope's claim to infalli- 
bility. The two are incompatible. Indeed, if the pope had 
been believed, always, everywhere, and by all, to be infallible, 
what need would there ever have been of councils, at all ? If 
modern Ultramontanism had always been the rule of the 
Church, we should never have heard of oecumenical councils 
and their paramount authority. The very fact that these 
councils have always enjoyed so much weight and authority 
in the Church of E-ome condemns the Jesuit doctrine ah 
limirte. 

I said that the Vatican council sanctioned a fiction when 
it decreed the infallibility of the pope. Before proving this 
thesis let us first see what they mean by the new dogma j espe- 
cially as they complain that Protestants misunderstand it. 

They do not admit papal infallibility pure and simple, but 
attach to it several restrictions. In the first place, they do not 
deny that popes are sinful mortals; nay, they even admit 



Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition, 289 

that they have sometimes led notoriously bad lives ; but they 
teach, that although sin darkens the understanding and pro- 
duces error, yet, in the case of the popes, God, by a constant 
miracle, intervenes between cause and effect, severing the 
latter from the former, and thus enabling them to teach the 
truth to the whole world, however base and evil their lives 
may be. Thus the popes are infallible^ although they are not 
impeccable. 

Again, they do not believe the pope infallible in hiB private 
capacity. In the intercourse with the persons surrounding 
him, he may teach any kind of error, and yet be the infalli- 
ble pope. It is only in his public teaching that he is believed 
to be endowed with infallibility. And this again they 
restrict within still narrower limits. Not every public 
address or letter of his is considered infallible, but only those 
public utterances, concerning faith and morals, which he 
issues ex cathedra are believed to be free from error. 

And he is said to teach ex. cathedra when he speaks as the 
universal teacher of the whole world, and addresses the 
whole Church, binding the consciences of all its members to 
accept his decrees with an absolute faith, under pain of 
eKCommunication and eternal damnation. Such ex-cathedrd 
decrees are believed to possess the same absolute certainty 
as the Bible or the decrees of an oecumenical council. 
They are considered to be independent of the consent of the 
Church, nor do they require any further proof for their 
general acceptance. They are not only final but also irrevo- 
cable ; they can never be repealed or reformed ; like the 
words of God, "they shall never pass away." They have 
not only regard to the present and future, but they embrace 
also the ex-cathedrd decisions of all the former popes from 
Peter to Pius IX. 

19 



290 Roman Catholicism. 

As this infallibility-dogma is of cardinal importance, the 
arguments by which it is established should be clear and 
conclusive. But they are quite the reverse. They are 
mostly of an inferential character— drawn from the pre- 
tended primacy of St. Peter and the nature, end, and object 
of the Church. They say, for instance, that the Yicar of 
Christ must share in Christ^s infallibility, otherwise he could 
not be the universal teacher of the Church, in whom all the 
members may repose implicit confidence. They argue from 
the nature and aim of the Church, ^. e,, leading men to the 
knowledge of the saving truth, that she must have an ever- 
available organ by which this knowledge maybe acquii-ed. 
And as general councils are only periodical and intermittent, 
the head of the Church must needs be the infallible teacher. 

Such and similar arguments have great effect with those 
whose minds are antecedently in favour of infallibility j 
but of themselves they do not possess a feather's weight. 
The^ philosophical arguments are not conclusive — non 
sequitur illatio. For the same end may be attained by other 
means than papal infallibility. We have seen in the first 
part of this course of lectures that the Word of God is the 
infallible element in the Church of Christ, and that the Holy 
Ghost will always guide believers into the truth. That the 
truth will always be accessible to the sincere enquirer 
wherever the Word of God is spread. Ecclesiasticism, 
however much you may endow it with infallibility, cannot 
save men. The Word of God, whatever Roman Catholics 
and infidels may assert to the contrary, is after all the only 
source of saving knowledge. There God has revealed 
Himself plainly enough for all purposes of salvation. Yet, 
this revelation does not supersede the necessity of faith and 
enquiry. God gives us the truth in such a way as to con- 



Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition, 291 

form with our mental constitution. He is the Author 
both of the Bible and of the human mind. It is not His 
will that we should blindly submit to the definitions and 
decrees of any mortal man. He has given us a rational 
mind to think and to judge, and a free will to accept or to 
refuse. The Jesuit doctrine of blind faith and obedience 
which, in our days, has been the real foundation of the 
Vatican decree is at variance with our spiritual nature and 
with the will and word of God. Christian faith is an intelli- 
gent assent. God wishes us "to prove all things and to hold 
fast that which is good " (i Thess. v., 2i), " to try the spirits 
whether they are God " (i John iv., 1), and to refuse 
obedience even to an angel from heaven if he preach a differ- 
ent gospel (Gal., i., 8). The Beraean Jews are recommended 
for searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were 
so (Acts xvii., 11). But the Vatican infallibility-defini- 
tion destroys the industrious application and intelligent 
assent of our intellect and will in matters of faith. It 
destroys our responsibility. 

Moreover, these philosophizing arguments of the infalli- 
bilists can have no weight with the serious and thoughtful 
Roman Catholic. He requires documents from tradition or 
history and from Scripture — the unwritten and written 
Word of God. For it has always been held by the Church 
that neither, the pope nor the bishops can create dogmas, but 
that they are only the trustees and witnesses of the deposit of 
faith. According to their rule of faith, they must prove 
that this infallibility dogma has been believed semper ^ ubiquey 
et ab omnibus — always, everywhere, and by all. 

Now, it can be conclusively proved that it lacks every 
one of these three marks of catholicity. Eminent Roman 
Catholic divines, of the Gallican school, before the Vatican 



292 Roman Catholicism, 

council, incontrovertibly refuted the modern papal claim, to 
our complete satisfaction. 

We open the pages of ancient Church history and read 
them atbentively, but nowhere do we find this doctrine ; 
nay, the more attentively and profoundly we prosecute our 
historical studies, the less we shall see of papal infallibility. 
We do not find it where undoubtedly it should be found. If 
this cardinal doctrine had always been believed, and occupied 
the prominent place it holds at present, it should be found in 
the ancient creeds. They were many, both general and local, 
and held an important place in the economy of the Church ; 
but we seek in vain therein for the doctrine of papal infalli- 
bility. All the catechumens should have been carefully in- 
structed in regard to this corner-stone of the Christian faith, 
and firmly grounded and built up in it ; but we do not find 
the slightest mention of it in the ancient catechetical instruc- 
tions written for their use. 

If the pope had been believed to be infallible, what need, 
one may ask, would there have been of oecumenical councils 
for the settlement of controversies of faith % Yet, in the 
undivided Church we have eight of them ; and what coun- 
cils ! Instead of the pope convoking them, they were con- 
voked by the Greek emperors ; instead of presiding therein, 
the popes were not even present j and as to the confirmation 
of the pope being necessary for the validity of their acts, no 
one dreamt of such a thing. It would have been an unheard 
of thing that the Homan bishop should, within the council, 
issue the decrees in his own name, sacro approhante concilio. 
No ; the councils acted altogether in their own name, and 
issued their decrees in the fulness of their own authority. 
They even judged the letters of the popes and approved or 
condemned them according to their merits or demerits. They 



Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition. 203 

not only assumed the fallibility of the bishop of Kome, but 
the sixth oecumenical council (680) anathematized Honorius, 
pope of Rome, for officially teaching and abetting the Mono- 
thelite heresy, which anathema was signed not only by all 
the bishops, but even by the three legates of the pope, and 
was repeated in the seventh and eighth councils. 

These councils were held in the East, and therefore pre- 
sent to us immediately and directly the teaching of the 
Greek Church. In no authentic document of that Church 
do we find the faintest trace of the doctrine of papal infalli- 
bility. The total absence of such documents in the most 
important branch of the Christian Church, during the first 
eight centuries, speaks volumes against modern papal pre- 
tensions. 

Nor are the infallibilists more successful in their patristic 
researches, for the fathers knew nothing of this doctrine. 
At the very outset we must exclude all the Greek fathers, 
who in no sense whatever can be said to favour it. The 
Latin fathers, who are few and of later date, acknowledge 
in the bishop of Eome a patriarchal authority over the 
Western Churches, but no infallibility in teaching. 

The African Church, the daughter of the missionary zeal 
of Eome, should surely have beheld in its bishop the infalli- 
ble head of the Church. It was a flourishing Church and 
very zealous in the observance of discipline and for fidelity 
to right government. Its bishops were remarkable for their 
learning. The names of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine will 
for ever live in the memory of the Christian Church. Yet, 
this Church, like all the others, had a method of settling 
controversies of faith, altogether different from that of the 
modern papacy. They appealed to the catholic consent as 
ascertained by local and general councils. 



294 Roman Catholicisn^, 

True ; St. Cyprian, in his zeal for a visible and tangible 
unity, endeavoured in much that he wrote, to give the 
Roman see a conspicuous place among the Churches ; but he 
had no glimpse whatever of papal infallibility. The system 
of unity which he advocates is that of episcopal solidarity and 
equality ; and he stoutly opposed Pope Stephen's view of the 
validity of heretical baptism. 

The Ultramontanes imagine that they find in the writings 
of the great St. Augustine proofs of the infallibility of the 
pope. They are greatly mistaken. He has written more 
about the government of the Church than all the other 
fathers put together, yet there is not a single chapter in his 
voluminous works in which he speaks of the supremacy, 
much less of the infallibility of the pope ; nay, we go further, 
and assert there is not even a single sentence that can be 
construed in favour of this doctrine. But what does his 
famous dictum mean : Roma locuta est, causa finita est ? 
Does it not mean that the pope is infallible ? 

By no means. In the second volume of the works of St. Au- 
gustine, Nos. 175 and 176, we find two letters of the councils 
of Carthage and Mileve addressed to Innocent I., bishop 
of Home, in which he is requested by the fathers of those 
councils to condemn the Pelagians. There is nothing in these 
letters which tends to show that they believed in the bishop 
of Rome as the infallible head of the Church. Indeed they 
would not have written to him at all if a particular circum- 
stance had not impelled them to it. This circumstance we 
learn from the next letter No. 177, which Augustine and four 
other bishops, together with the fathers of the council, wrote 
to Pope Innocent. They had heard that, in the city of 
Rome, where Pelagius had lived for a considerable time, 
there were some who favoured his cause. They were afraic 



Infallibility in Light of Reason and Tradition, 295 

that Innocent, led astray by the friends of Pelagius or mis- 
understanding his doctrine, would receive him into commun- 
ion with his Church. After having received a favourable 
answer from Innocent, Augustine mentioned it incidentally 
in a sermon, No. 131, saying: "Already the transactions 
of two councils concerning this matter have been sent to the 
Apostolic see and an answer has been received. The con- 
troversy is ended ; would that the error, too, were at an end " 
— causafinita est, utinaifrh aliqucmdo error finiatur. Thus the 
words Roma locuta est, causafinita est, belong to those strik- 
ing general maxims or clinchers which were never uttered 
by those into whose mouths they are put. There is all the 
difference in the world, whether St. Augustine states, in 
sweeping terms, that by a judgment from Rome every dog- 
matic controversy is ended, or merely mentions incidentally 
in a sermon an occasional coirespondence between the Afri- 
can bishops and Rome, and then declares that in this par- 
ticular case the controversy may be considered as brought to 
an end. After the African bishops had condemned Pelagius 
in two councils, and after the transmarine Churches repre- 
sented by the patriarch of Rome had given their assent to 
this judgment of the Africans, the Pelagian cause might be 
considered as ended, at least in the West. The error was so 
obvious that no further proceedings against it were deemed 
necessary. Yet, St. Augustine was mistaken. It was not 
until after its condemnation by the general council of 
Ephesus that the Pelagian controversy was finally settled. 

If all the works of St. Augustine, with the exception of 
the above-mentioned three letters and the sermon No 131, 
had been lost, we might be induced to allow that he admits 
in the Roman pontiff a primacy in teaching. But such a 
primacy is far different from infallibility; although the 



296 Roman Catholicism, 

popes and their adherents have endeavoured to deduce the 
latter prerogative from the former. A head-teacher in re- 
ligious matters may be useful for the speedy condemnation of 
errors, especially if he be in a central position where he is 
enabled to know the catholic consensus of the Church and 
where a plenary council can be called to correct any mistake 
into which he may fall. But St. Augustine does not admit 
such a primacy in teaching, much less the gift of infallibility. 
The fact is, passages excluding the primacy of the pope 
occur in his works in large masses, while texts which may 
seem to favour it are few and occur only incidentally. 

Most assuredly the fathers knew of no such claimant to in- 
fallibility ; otherwise there would have been a speedy end to 
their disputes with heretics ; they would have applied 
to this oracle at Eome for an authoritative decree. 
It would have been the mot dlordre ; nothing would have 
been easier than to silence heretics by informing them that 
the pope taught differently. If papal infallibility had been 
the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesice we should read 
much of it in the fathers. If there had always been a 
divine oracle in the Vatican, the writings of the fathers would 
wear a different colour, and the history of the Church would 
have taken an altogether different direction. 



LECTUEE VII. 

THE VATICAN DECREE IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY. 

ANCIENT Churcli history is not only silent about the 
infallibility of the pope, but it affords, on the contrary, 
abundant proofs that the pretended oracle on the seven hills 
was more than once a lying oracle. I have space merely to 
enumerate some of the papal errors and contradictions. 

The decrees, letters, and writings of the popes contradict 
repeatedly the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature and 
administration of the sacraments. Thus Innocent I., and his 
successors, at least until Pope Gelasius I., taught that the 
sacrament of communion was necessary for the salvation of 
infants (Gelas. I. ep. ix). This doctrine was anathematized 
by the council of Trent. Nicholas I., in his letter to the 
Bulgarians, taught that baptism in the name of Christ alone 
was quite sufficient. Celestine III. loosened the marriage tie 
by declaring it dissolved if either party became heretical. 
Stephen II. allowed marriage with a slave girl to be dissolved. 
Nicholas II. taught the Capernaite doctrine in regard to the 
sacrament of the Eucharist. Eugenius IV. in his letter to 
the Armenians, taught several erroneous doctrines touching 
the validity of the sacraments. 

It is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church that ordina- 
tion is a sacrament impressing on the soul an indelible char- 
acter , which can neither be removed nor renewed. Hence 



298 Roman Catholicism, 

the maxim : " Once a priest, forever a priest." Re-ordina- 
tion, therefore, has always been opposed in the Church as an 
heretical practice pregnant with calamitous consequences. 
But the popes, from the eighth century to the end of the 
middle ages, showed by their decrees and acts that they be- 
lieved that the un worthiness, heresy, or simony of the ordain- 
ing bishop rendered the ordination null and void. The con- 
stant ex-ordinations^ re-ordinations or super-ordinations, as 
they were called, threw the Church into a state of great con- 
fusion. If the popes had been infallible, they would not have 
acted as they did. 

The student of history is acquainted with the pernicious 
errors into which the popes fell in regard to the relation 
between the papal authority and the secular power. Ever 
since the Hildebrandine era they have endeavoured to make 
the whole world a priest-kingdom. They taught that the 
pope has supreme authority not only in spiritual but also in 
temporal things ; that two swords are given him by Christ, 
the spiritual and the secular, the former to be wielded by the 
pope himself, the latter to be borne by the secular princes on 
behalf of the Church and at the will and pleasure of the 
pope ; that the pope has the power of deposing heretical and 
disobedient kings and absolving their subjects from the oath 
of allegiance; that all secular power is derived from the 
pope, who may erect kingdoms and appoint kings. Roman 
Catholics cannot say that the popes exercised such enormous 
power by international law ; for they claimed it as pertain- 
ing to them hy divine right. And herein lies the heresy of 
which they are guilty. Pope Gregory YII., who may be 
considered the great apostle of this pestilential doctrine, 
teaches it constantly in his epistles and in the Roman coun- 
cils claim it as an inherent right of the pontifical power, 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 299 

and as being contained in the commission which Peter 
received from Christ of binding and loosing. The contem- 
porary opponents of this doctrine called it the novel heresy 
of Hildebrand, 

His successors, explaining the import of the divine com- 
mission, maintained that the right to direct, command, and 
judge in all temporal things had been conferred on them by 
the Son of God Himself ratione peccati, that is, in order to 
prevent and repress the commission of sin ; that Christ had 
given to Peter two swords, and that the secular sword or 
power ought to be subject to the spiritual one. They 
claimed this divine right, not as private persons, but in their 
public official capacity and by virtue of their apostolical 
authority, under pain of excommunication and eternal 
damnation. Thus Innocent III. affirmed, "the pontifical 
authority so much to exceed the royal power, as the sun 
doth the moon," and applies to the former the words of the 
Prophet (Jerem. i. 10) : " See, I have set thee over the 
nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and pull down, to 
destroy and to throw down, &c." (Innocent III., in Decret. 
Gregor. Tit. 33, cap. 6). And history shows with what a 
high hand he exercised this power which he taught that he 
had received frorn, on high, and not by the law and consent 
of nations. 

Pope Innocent lY. taught the same doctrine, when in the 
council of Lyons he excommunicated the emperor Frederick 
II., in the words: "We having about the foregoing and 
many other his wicked deeds had before a careful delibera- 
tion with our brethren and the holy council, seeing that we, 
although unworthy, do hold the place of Jesus Christ on 
earth, and that it was said unto us in the person of St. 
Peter the Apostle, ' Whatsoever thou shalb bind on earth' — 



300 Roman Catholicism,. 

do show, denounce, and accordingly by sentence deprive the 
said prince ; absolving all who are held bound by oath of 
allegiance from such oath forever ; by Apostolical authority 
firmly prohibiting, that no man henceforth do obey or regard 
him as emperor or king; and decreeing, that whosoever 
shall hereafter yield advice, or aid, or do honour to him as 
emperor or king, shall immediately be under the ban of 
excommunication." (P. Inn. lY., in Con. Lugd.) He, 
therefore, believed that he held the deposing power and the 
supreme control over temporal things, hy divine right. 

Boniface YIII. stretched this doctrine to the utmost limits 
when, in his famous bull Unam Sanctam addressed to the' 
Universal Church, he said : " We declare, say, define, pro- 
nounce it to he of necessity to salvation, for every human 
creature to be subject to the Roman pontifi*." This sub- 
jection, according to his view, extends to all matters ; for 
he there speaks of a double sword, and asserts to himself 
jurisdiction oygr all temp oral authorities. For ^^One sword," 
saith he, " must be under another, and the temporal authori- 
ty must be subject to the spiritual power ; whence, if thft 
earthly power doth go astray, it must be judged by the 
spiritual power." And these aphorisms he attempts to prove 
by texts from Scripture wonderfully expounded for that^ 
purpose. 

Here we have, undoubtedly, even in the system of the 
minimizers, an ex-cathedra bull. Its object, therefore, must 
be a dogmatic definition, to be believed by the Church for all 
time to come. They cannot deny that it is intended to mark 
out the relation between the papal authority and the civil 
power, and involves the complete subjection of the latter to 
the former, so that the pope jure divine has authority over 
all kings and princes, and may depose them and absolve 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of History, 301 

subjects from their allegiance. Therefore this doctrine is to 
be believed as a truth revealed from God. 

It is this dogma, principally, which excites the enmity 
and arouses the ire of modern society against the papacy. 
Hence Koman Catholic theologians, in order to escape, by 
any means, the difficulties arising out of the relation between 
modern public opinion and this doctrine, endeavour to explain 
away the dogmatic import of this famous bull of Boniface 
VIII. But they evidently do violence to the manifest con- 
nection of facts which induced the pope to issue it, and to the 
unmistakable import of its words. That it is a dogmatic 
bull was firmly believed and clearly taught by aU former 
theologians. Suarez says : " The proposition that the pope 
possesses the power of deposing heretical and obstinate kings, 
or kings who, in their realm, are injurious in things apper- 
taining to the well-being of the soul, is to be held and be- 
lieved as a dogma of faith. For it is contained in the words 
of Christ addressed to Peter in a particular manner : What- 
soever thou shalt bind, &c., and Feed my sheep, (fee, as the 
Church has always understood them, and as Boniface VIII. 
in his hull TJnam Sanctam has most plainly declared.''^ 
(Suarez Defensio Fid. lib. YI., c. 8). Baronius says : ^^All 
do assent to it (the bull of Boniface YIII.) so that none 
dissenteth, who doth not by discord fall from the Church,''* 
The same Baronius and Lessius teach that what Gregory 
YI. published in the Boman council (concerning this doc- 
trine) is sufficient to make it a dogma of faith. Bellarmine, 
in his tractate against William Barclay, asserts that the 
power of the Roman pontiff in temporal things is by no 
means a doubtful thing, but evident and clear to all Catho- 
lics ; and among other proofs, he adduces the bull TJnam 
Sancta/m, He shows that we are taught by it that one sword 



302 Roman Catholicism. 

must be under another; and adds that Clement V., in the 
great synod of Yienne, did not revoke it, but rather admon- 
ished the faithful that it defined nothing new, but declared 
the old obligation by which men must obey the apostolic see 
and submit to its decrees. (Cap. III., p. 37, Rom. 1610)\ 
/ But we do not mean to establish the dogmatic import of 
/this bull merely by the opinions and arguments of theolo- 
/ gians. For it is a known fact that all the popes until the 
/ seventeenth century dogmatically claimed supreme temporal 
/ authority over all nations and kingdoms as a divine right 
I bestowed upon them by Christ Himself, and anathematize^ 
\ the contrary doctrine as heretical. 

\l Thus Pope Pius Y. begins his bull against Queen Elizabeth 
/in these words : " He that reigneth on high, to whom is 
/ given all power in heaven and in earth, hath committed the 
i one Holy and Apostolic Church, out of which there is no sal- 
/ vation, to one alone on earth, namely, to Peter, prince of the 
/ Apostles, and to the Roman pontiflT, successor of Peter, to be 
governed with a plenitude of power. This one he hath con- 
stituted prince over all nations and all kingdoms, that he 
might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruin, plant, and build." 
And in the same bull he declares that " he thereby deprives 
the queen of her pretended right to the kingdom, and of all 
dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever; and absolves 
all the nobles, subjects, and people of the kingdom, and who- 
soever else has sworn to her, from their oath, and all duty 
whatsoever, in regard to dominion, fidelity, and obedience." 
From this bull of excommunication it is evident that Pius Y., 
a saintly pope, believed and taught the power of deposing 
kings hy divine right. 

Sixtus Y., in his bull against Henry, king of Navarre, 
and the Prince of Conde, speaks thus : " The authority given 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of History, 303 



ndf 



/to St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the 

) Eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and 

/ princes ; it passes uncontrollable sentence upon them all ; and \ 

\^ if it find any of them resisting God's ordinance, it takes more I 

' severe vengeance on them, casting them down from their 

i thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them down 

\to the lowest parts of the earth, as the ministers of aspiring \ 

/Lucifer." And then he proceeds to thunder against them : 

j " We deprive them and their posterity for ever of their do- 

j minions and kingdoms." 

/ From what we have said it is abundantly evident that the 
* popes taught this doctrine, ex cathedra^ as a dogma of faith, \ 
\ irrevocable and unchangeable. And here Ex)man Catholics j 
J are in a difficult dilemma. They must hold such teaching i 
j to be either true or false. If they admit the latter, then \ 
they must also concede that the popes enunciating it fell into 
a damnable heresy. If, on the other hand, they believe it 
to be true, as according to their system they should, they 
place the papacy and the Church of which it is the head in a 
most odious position before the whole world. In that case 
they need not be astonished if every man's hand is raised 
against such an institution. 

Nor can they escape from the horns of the dilemma by 

replying that such teaching was true so long as the then ex- 

1 isting law of nations lasted, but that it has no force and value 

./ whatever in the changed state of modern international law. 

I For those popes, in their utterances, had no regard to the 

\ circumstances of times and places ; they spoke ex cathedra 

and enunciated general doctrines applicable to all times; 

fchey promulgated their supreme authority over temporal 

things as a divine rights inherent in the papacy, and conferred 

/upon it by Christ Himself. And if they have it jure divino, 

L 



304 Roman Catholicism. 

they possess it for all time. And if they cannot exercise it 
now without having the whole world in arms against them, 
they are at liberty to enforce it again whenever circum- 
stances permit. 

Not only here, but also in other teachings of mediaeval and 
modern popes, sincere and intelligent Roman Catholics must 
feel themselves reduced to painful straits. The writings of 
these popes are a strange mixture of truth and error. Who 
will sift them and separate the one from the other % Who will 
dare to maintain that, in many of their official utterances, 
they have not fallen into egregious errors % The student of 
history must stand amazed at the bold declaration of the 
infallibilists, that the popes as popes have never fallen into 
any error against faith and morals. It is remarkable that 
the bolder their pretensions to absolute power and infalli- 
bility, the more gross were the errors into which the popes 
fell, especially in regard to the relations between Church and 
State. We find that those popes who did not dream of the 
prerogative of infallibility were less guilty of heresy than 
those who exalted their authority beyond measure. 

History furnishes us with several instances where the old 
bishops of Rome were not faithful guardians of the deposit 
of faith. The apostasy of Liberius who, in order to purchase 
his return from exile, condemned Athanasius, the valiant 
champion of the orthodox faith, and subscribed an Arian 
creed (358) was always considered, until the infallibility- 
doctrine was formulated, a sufficient example that the popes 
were liable to error. In the controversies about grace and 
original sin which chiefly agitated the West, Pope Zosimus 
approved the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius which his 
predecessor Innocent I., and the African synods had con- 
demned. 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of History, 305 

For several centuries the East was agitated by fierce con- 
troveries about tlie fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 
Arianism was scarcely subdued, when Nestorianism arose, 
and this heresy was followed by Eutychianism and other 
important controversies. These religious agitations greatly 
disturbed the peace of the Greek empire. The emperors, in 
their efforts to restore peace, resorted to a policy of com- 
promise. Thus the emperor Justinian I. was advised that 
the Eutychians or Monophysites would return to the Church, 
if Theodorus of Mopsuestia and his writings, the tractates of 
Theodoretus against the anathematismi of Cyrillus, and the 
letter of Ibas to Maris the Persian were condemned. These 
three subjects of condemnation were called the Three Cliap- 
te?'s. But although these writings contained the Nestorian 
heresy, many bishops were of opinion that the Three Chap- 
ters could not be condemned without injury to the authority 
of the council of Chalcedon which, in condemning the errors 
of Nestorius, refrained from inflicting any censure upon the 
persons of Theodorus, Theodoretus, and Ibas. Mennas, 
patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops subscribed the 
edict of the emperor condemning the Three Chapters, on 
condition that the bishop of E.ome should likewise subscribe 
it. But Pope Yigilius hedged in this controversy. He 
thrice contradicted himself. First, he pronounced the Thi^ee 
Chapters orthodox (in 546) ; a year afterwards he condemned 
them; then again he returned to his first teaching and 
vacillated in a manner pitiably unworthy of an infallible 
teacher, during the fifth general council, which anathematized 
the fickle pope. He finally submitted to the decree of the 
council. But the Western bishops arose in indignation 
against him as a traitor to the faith of the council of Chalce- 
don and separated from his communion and a long schism in 

20 



306 Roman Catholicism, 

the West was the consequence. From this it appears that 
the Church did not believe the pope to be endowed with the 
prerogative of infallibility. How deeply rooted the con- 
viction of the pope's fallibility was, may be seen, among 
other documents of that time, from the letter of St. Columba, 
of Ireland, who wrote to Pope Boniface III. : " Yigila, pater, 
vigila, quia forte non bene vigilavit Vigilius, quem caput 
scandali illi clamant. Dolendum est et flendum, si in sede 
Apostolica fides Catholica non tenetur."* 

Not long afterwards another pope fell into heresy in a 
similar case of compromise. Heraclius, lie Greek emperor, 
after having gained brilliant victories over the Persians and 
snatched from them Egypt and Syria, was anxious that the 
Monophysites should be united with the Church. They 
were very numerous in the conquered provinces ; in Egypt 
alone they numbered over fifteen millions. Some of their 
bishops asserted that they and their adherents were willing 
to profess that there were two natures in Christ, provided 
the Catholics admitted that there was only one operation and 
one will in Him. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, 
thought that a union under some such compact might be 
effected, and Heraclius agreed. In the year 633, the Mono- 
physites of Alexandria, called Theodosians after their former 
bishop, united with the Catholics, on condition that they 
might be allowed to profess only one human-divine {^Eav^ 
SpiKtfy) operation in Christ. Cyrus, patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, showed the articles of union to Sophronius, a pious and 
learned monk, who highly disapproved of them, and as he 
could not obtain their abolition at Alexandria, he betook 
himself to Sergius. This prelate, fearing lest a public agita- 

*Watch, father, watch, for Vigilius (watcher), whom they call the 
head of this scandal, did not watch very well. It is to be regretted 
and lamented if the Catholic faith is not kept in the Apostolic see. 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of History. 307 

tion of this question might throw serious impediments in the 
way of his and the emperor^s scheme of union, wrote to Cyrus 
counselling silence, as well «a one as on two operations in 
Christ. While thus the Theodosians, according to the terms 
of union, were allowed to believe only in one operation, the 
Catholics were restrained from teaching two operations or 
rejecting the doctrine of one only operation. Shortly after- 
wards Sophronius was elected patriarch of Jerusalem. 
Sergius wrote to pope Honorius I., in order to obtain his 
approbation of what he had already done in the matter. He 
deserves credit for not concealing anything in this letter 
from the Eoman pontiff, and for explaining accurately the 
whole bearing of the question. Honorius, in his letters to 
Sergius and the other two patriarchs, not only approves of 
the policy of silence, but clearly teaches the Monothelite 
error ; nay, if we compare his letters with those of Sergius, 
we find that he surpasses that prelate in the explicitness of 
his erroneous teaching. These letters are a standing monu- 
ment of the fallibility of the pope ; and no fanciful exegesis 
can purge him of the stain of heresy. 

To maintain that Honorius wrote these heretical letters 
only as a private person would be a strange ignoring of his- 
tory. For Sergius by no means concealed from the pontiff 
the importance of the whole matter. A great scheme had 
been planned which aimed to bring back the great patriar- 
chate of Alexandria to the unity of faith, the communion 
with the Church. Numerous Theodosians had already 
entered this union, and both Sergius and the Emperor anti- 
cipated that the rest of the Monophysites would follow their 
example. The question now was whether the concessions 
made to them were consonant with the Catholic faith. The 
pcitiiarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria held that the 



308 Roman Cutholicism. 

compromise was orthodox, but the patriarch of Jerusalem was 
of a different opinion. A schism was thus imminent in the 
East. All the circumstances of the question were such as to 
induce Honorius to proceed with the greatest caution but 
with the whole weight of his exalted position. He could 
not be ignorant of the fact that Sergius sought his assent in 
order to employ it against Sophronius and his party, and 
that he would use his letter as the authoritative decision 
of the Roman see, not as the private opinion of Honorius. 
The pope, being aware of all this, wrote his famous letter with 
the greatest care and after the gravest consideration, calling 
to his aid in its composition the services of the learned 
abbot, John Simpo. Thus it would be utterly absurd to 
look upon it as a mere private opinion of a certain Honorius 
who happened to be bishop of E,ome. 

What therefore shall we think of Pope Honorius % Was 
he a heretic % The sixth oecumenical council, held at Con- 
stantinople in 778, declared him so to be and anathematized 
him and his letter not only once, but repeatedly, and that in 
the strongest terms. The Roman see submitted to this 
condemnation. Pope Leo II. in his letter written in confir- 
mation of the council severely censures the writings of 
Honorius. The seventh oecumenical council (in 787) and 
the eighth (in 869), repeated the sentence of excommunica- 
tion against him. The popes not only confirmed the sentence 
of these three councils, but for three hundred years after- 
wards, in a solemn oath at their accession to the papal 
throne, accepted the decrees of the sixth council and pro- 
nounced " an eternal anathema " on the authors and abet- 
tors of the Monothelite heresy, among whom Honorius was 
expressly included. Even in the Roman breviary the 
memory of this condemnation was preiserved until the six- 



The Vatican Decree in the Li^t of History, 309 

teenth century, for we read in the lection for the feast of St. 
Leo II., the 26th day of June : "In which synod were con- 
demned Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, Pyrrhus, &c., who asserted 
and predicted one will and operation in our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

Thus we have a fact as clear as noon-day that the whole 
Church, together with the pope, considered the occupants of 
the Roman see not only liable to fall into heresy, but that 
one of them was actually a heretic. The heresy of Honor- 
ius is as evident a fact as any in Church-history, although 
the Jesuits have made desperate efforts to demolish it. Baron- 
ius pronounces the acts of the council a downright forgery of 
the Greeks; Bellarmine declares the letters of Honorius 
forgeries; neither of them proffer a scintilla of evidence 
for his assertion. Having been compelled to give up this 
shift they have endeavoured since the middle of the last cen 
tury, to explain the letters of Honorius in an orthodox sense. 
But the fact remains that Pope Honorius was a heretic. 

Forgeries indeed ! The infallibilists are the men who make 
use of forgeries to establish their doctrine. We have spoken 
of these forgeries in one of the preceding lectures. The 
game spurious documents which were fabricated to establish 
papal absolutism were afterwards used to advance his claim 
to infallibility. The principles laid down in these forgeries 
formed the foundation of the mediaeval papacy, became the 
basis of all the canon-law of the Church, entered into her 
very life, and completely changed her constitution. These 
spurious documents,' having once gained a firm footing in the 
Church, were believed for centuries to be genuine, and it re- 
quired a resolute criticism to expose their spurious origin. 
On the«?e documents the doctrine of infallibility is based. 
OuQ of ^e often recurring sayings of the pseudo-Isidorian 



310 Roman Catholicism. 

decretals is : " Tlie Roman Churcli remains to the end free 
from the stain of heresy." With these materials in hand 
the Jesuits (as the authors of the learned and reliable work, 
" The Pope and the Council " conclusively prove) built up 
and developed their system of papal infallibility. 



LECTUEE VIII. 

THE VATICAN DECREE IN THE LIGHT OF SCRIPTURE, 

SCEIPTUKE is the lasi source of arguments to whicli 
Eoman Catholics appeal. As we saw in the first part 
of this course of lectures, tradition is indispensable, Scripture 
is merely desirable in proving any of their dogmas. But 
can they find arguments from Scripture to justify the Vati- 
can decree ? 

The Old Testament is against them. The Jews had no in- 
fallible tribunal to which they appealed in any controver- 
sies and religious difficulties. The Scriptures were their rule 
of faith. Their high priest was not believed to possess the 
gift of infallibility. Was Caiaphas infallible when he de- 
clared our Lord guilty of blasphemy, because he professed to 
be the Son of God ? 

But can they prove their dogma from the writings of the 
New Testament *? Dr. Newman says that '- the long history 
of the contest for or against the pope's infallibility has been 
but a growing insight into the meaning of these three 
texts," namely, Matt, xvi., 16-19 j John xxi., 15-17; Luke 
xxii., 32. He means that these three texts have been devel- 
oped, and that the dogma of papal infallibility is the result of 
this development. But if so, the dogma must be contained 
in them as the conclusion is contained in the premisses, for 
no other kind of development is admissible. We cQnr 



312 Roman Catholicism. 

sidered these texts in one of the preceding lectures and 
found that they cannot be interpreted as conferring imme- 
diate and episcopal jurisdiction on St. Peter over the Apos- 
tles and the whole Church ; but let us make some further re- 
marks. 

The Roman Catholic rule of interpretation is restricted by 
the following article in the creed of Pius Y., "Neither will 
I ever take and interpret them (the Scriptures) otherwise, 
than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." 
They are bound therefore not to deviate from the unanimous 
consent of the fathers. But the infallibilists glaringly and un 
scrupulously transgress this cardinal rule of their Church 
We challenge them to produce even one of the fathers inter- 
preting these texts in the sense of papal infallibility. We 
know that this unanimous consent of the fathers is a fiction, 
except as regards the fundamental truths of Christianity. Is 
the orthodox interpretation of the Bible confined to the 
patristic centuries ? Has biblical exegesis been at a stand- 
still since Gregory the Great, the last of the fathers ? 

It is difficult to understand how the infallibilists extract 
their dogma from these texts. In regard to Matt, xvi., 18 
they argue that *' the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
the Church," because she is built on Peter and his successors 
as on a rock ; if therefore the bishops of Rome, the succes- 
sors of St. Peter should fall into heresy, Satan would pre- 
vail against the Church. 

We answer, first, that between the conclusion and pre- 
misses of this argument there are many intermediate links 
which require proof, and we demonstrated, in a preceding 
lecture, that they cannot be proved. A thoughtful insight 
into this text will convince any unprejudiced thinker that 
the whole object of this dialogue i^ faith in the divine Somhip 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of Scripture, 313 

of Christ, and He evidently intends to say that such a faith 
is a rock — the foundation on which His Church is built, and 
further that so long as this foundation on which the whole 
superstructure rests remains firm and intact, the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. And this faith is not in- 
fused into the Church by Peter and his successors ; for it is 
the gift of God. Christ Himself, in the above text, says : 
'^ Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my 
Father which is in heaven." 

In regard to John xxi., 15, they maintain that the words, 
" Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," signify feeding the whole 
flock with «ound doctrine. Now, how could Peter and his 
successors do so, if in their official capacity they were liable 
to error ? 

We answer and have proved that the conversation be- 
tween Christ and Peter, at the sea of Tiberias, was rather a 
humiliation than an exaltation of the latter. It was a renewal 
of his call to the Apostleship, which the Lord wished to 
make particularly impressive to him after his shameful denial. 
Besides, the same office of feeding the whole flock was given 
to all the other Apostles. What else means the commission, 
" Go, teach all nations " ? 

They believe they have a strong proof of their dogma in 
Luke xxii., 32, "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold 
Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as 
wheat : but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not : 
and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." 
They say that Christ prayed that the faith of Peter and his 
successors fail not. Christ's prayer would have no efficacy, if 
the Roman pontifis, the successors of Peter, could fall into 
dogmatic errors. How could they be said to strengthen 
their brethren in the faith if they themselves could fall from, 
the faith into heresy ] 



314 Roman Catholicism, 

We answer that this text, also, is rather a humiliation than 
an exaltation of Peter. Christ, in the immediately follow- 
ing verses, foretells him that he will deny Him thrice. He 
exhorts him as it were, not to despair after his fall, like 
Judas, but to rise again, since He has prayed for him that his 
faith fail not. He shall not cease to be an Apostle, on ac- 
count of his fall, but strengthen and comfort his brethren in 
the sore trials that await them. Nothing is said here of 
teaching, but only of supporting and strengthening the faith 
they already possessed, in order to keep them from falling 
and denying their Saviour. Thus the text is explained by 
the fathers ; and Koman Catholics should interpret it accord- 
ing to their unanimous consent. Faith here, evidently, does 
not mean, as the infallibilists would have it, orthodoxy or 
assent to dogmas, but, as nearly always in the New Testa- 
ment, trust in and attachment to, Christ. If the Roman 
Catholic interpretation were true, it would prove too much ; 
it would suppose that the popes have fallen and been con- 
verted, like Peter. We know the former to be a fact, but 
we cannot vouch for the latter. 

We are of a different opinion from Dr. Newman in regard 
to " the growing insight into these three texts through cen- 
turies," as confirming the dogma of infallibility. We are 
compelled to confess that the whole history of the papacy has 
given us a growing insight into the manner in which these 
sacred texts have been abused to establish an untenable, nay, 
a blasphemous, claim which cannot fail to issue ultimately in 
the ruin and downfall of the papacy. 

We conclude this Lecture by some striking remarks of Dr. 
Schaff (Hist, of the Vat. Council, p. 30) : 

**The constant appeal of the Roman Church to Peter 
suggests a significant parallel. There is a spiritual Peter 



The Vatican Decree in the Light of Scripture, 315 

and a carnal Simon, who are separated, indeed, by regenera- 
tion, yet after all, not so completely that the old nature does 
not occasionally re-appear in the new man." 

" It was the spiritual Peter who forsook all to follow 
Christ ; who first confessed him as the Son of God, and hence 
was called rock ; who after his terrible fall wept bitterly ; 
was re-LQstated and entrusted with the care of Christ^s sheep ; 
who, on the birthday of the Church, preached the first mis- 
sionary sermon, and gathered in the three thousand converts; 
who in the Apostles' council protested against the narrow 
bigotry of the Judaizers, and stood up with Paul for the 
principle of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ ; 
who, in his epistles, warns all ministers against hierarchical 
pride, and exhibits a wonderful meekness, gentleness, and 
humility of spirit, showing that divine grace had overruled 
and sanctified to him even his fall ; and who followed at last 
his master to the cross of martyrdom." 

" It was the carnal Simon who presumed to divert his 
Lord from the path of sufiering, and drew on him the rebuke 
* Get thee behind me, Satan ; thou art a stumbling-block 
unto me, for thou miudest not the things of God, but the 
things of men ;' the Simon who, in mistaken zeal, used the 
sword and cut off the ear of Malchus ; who proudly boasted 
of his unswerving fidelity to his Master, and yet a few hours 
afterwards denied Him thrice before a servant woman ; who 
even after the Pentecostal illumination was overcome by his 
natural weakness, and from policy or fear of the Judaizing 
party was untrue to his better convictions, so as to draw on 
him the public rebuke of the younger Apostle of the Gentiles. 
The Romish legend of Domine quo vadis makes him relapse 
into his inconstancy even a day before his martyrdom, and 
memorializes it in a chapel outside of Home." 



316 Roman Catholicism, 

" The reader may judge whether the history of the popes 
reflects more the character of the spiritual Peter, or the 
carnal Simon. If the Apostolic Church prophetically anti- 
cipates and foreshadows the whole course of Christian his- 
tory, the temporary collision of Peter, the Apostle of the cir- 
cumcision, and Paul, the Apostle of the uncircumcision, at 
Antioch, is a significant type of the antagonism between 
E/omanism and Protestantism, between the Church of the 
binding law and the Church of the free Gospel." 



LECTURE IX. 

THEORY AND FAOT. 

WE have hitherto considered the whole question of in- 
fallibility, both episcopal and papal, examining the 
arguments on which its adherents rely, noticing its develop- 
ment, and reviewing its practical bearing upon Roman 
dogmas and discipline. And the conclusion we arrive at is, 
that we cannot help discovering a remarkable discrepancy 
between hypothesis and fact. 

This discrepancy makes its appearance, at the very outset, 
in the arguments by which they endeavour to establish the 
infallibility dogma. They are not content with moral cer- 
tainty in acquiring God's revealed truths, but they want 
absolute certainty or infallihility. And how can they prove 
this infallibility, but by making it rest upon a belief in 
Christianity itself which is necessarily of the nature of moral 
historical evidence? It is astonishing that the Roman 
Church with its cloud of learned theologians, profound philo- 
sophers, and shrewd thinkers, does not see that the con- 
clusions of faith cannot be logically stronger than the amount 
of historical evidence on which the claims of Christianity 
itself are based? How can men accept a theory which is 
equivalent to the assumption that the inferences in a process 
of reasoning can be more certain than the premisses on which 
they rest % Let them try as they may, they cannot find pre- 



318 Roman Catholicism. 

misses which logically contain the infallibility-doctrine. The 
fact is, that in God's dealings with man, the acquisition of 
truth by means of long and patient struggle has been the 
universal law of human thought from the time when men 
first began to reason. 

There is a strange contrast between the infallibility doc- 
trine and its practical influence on the belief of the Church. 
Rome, by hypothesis, should be the most pure, when in fact, 
she is the most corrupt Church in Christendom, beyond the 
hope of reform, and corruptible ad infinitum. 

Roman Catholics themselves have felt that episcopal infal- 
libility by no means met the ends for which it was proposed. 
Will the dogma of papal inerrancy have better success? 
Will it be the panacea for all the ills of the Church, settling 
all controversies of faith, and removing every doubt ? We 
foresee that the difficulties of Rome, instead of decreasing, 
will be multiplied, not only within her own bosom, but also 
in her relations with the non-Catholic world. 

This point has been prominently brought forward in the 
recent controversy about the infallibility-question. A brief 
review, therefore, of this interesting debate in which the 
leading thinkers on both sides have been earnestly engaged 
may give us some insight into the real value and consequen- 
ces of the papal infallibility-dogma. 

The two prominent figures in this controversy are Mr. 
Gladstone and Dr. Newman. Protestant Churchmen rejoiced 
when they first heard that Mr. Gladstone had appeared as an 
antagonist of the papacy and the champion of Protestantism. 
Many were, no doubt, prejudiced against him by the vague 
reports that from time to time came to their ears of his ex- 
treme high-churchism and his Romeward tendencies. Per- 
haps his public policy in favour of the Irish Roman Catho- 



Theory and Fact. 319 

lies gave currency to these rumours, Thej were pleased, 
therefore, when his pamphlets made their appearance. And 
they had reason to be pleased, for he proved his thesis to the 
satisfaction of all fair-minded thinkers. His " Vaticanism " 
is a crushing reply to all who have entered the lists against 
him. 

For Dr. Newman I have no feeling but that of sincere 
sympathy. I was a divinity student of Propaganda College, 
Rome, when he, shortly after having renounced Protestant- 
ism, entered that institution and remained there for nearly 
two years, in order to become thoroughly imbued with the 
spirit of Eomanism and to prepare for his re-ordination to 
the Pomish priesthood. I attended the same lectures and 
was also present at his re-ordination. I had the pleasure of 
visiting him occasionally in his retreat in company with 
other students. Well do I remember his thoughtful coun- 
tenance, his kindly smile and unostentatious humility. He 
eminently possessed what Poman Catholics call the pietas 
fidei. How different are men's minds and ways ! While he 
and his associates joined the Church of Pome hoping to find 
peace there, others with equal sincerity left that Church, 
looking upon it as the work of man, and finding peace in 
evangelical religion. How many things of ecclesiastical im- 
portance have occurred since then ! How has the Church of 
Pome changed even in that brief period ! 

Dr. Newman was not an Ultramontane ; how then can he 
and others find peace in Pome after the Vatican definition ? 
He, like many other honest souls, never expected the decree. 
But when it was passed he accepted it, because he was able 
to reason his private judgment into receiving it and to mini- 
mize it, that is, to whittle it down to an invisibly fine point, 
which cannot stand the test of practical application. Dr. 



320 Roman Catholicism. 

Newman is a minimizer and advocates the principle of mini- 
mizing " as necessary for a wise and cautious theology." 

When papal infallibility was still an open question, 
Koman Catholics were divided into two large schools, the 
Gallican and Ultramontane. The Vatican council silenced 
for ever the Gallican school. But what became of the 
liberal-minded men who were imbued with its principles'? 
Did they leave the Church % Only the brave band of Old 
Catholics had the courage to break off with Kome ; the rest 
remained where they were. But have they become out-and- 
out Ultramontanes % No ; they have found out a new path \ 
they reduce papal infallibility to its minimum. On this ac- 
count they are called minimizers, while those who advocate 
the importance of this gift and its practical bearings on all 
the departments of t^^e Church's life go by the name of 
maximizGTS. In a word, the Vatican definition has still left 
ample room for open questions, and the camp of theologians is 
again divided into two great schools. The one includes all 
the liberal-minded Churchmen, and the other is composed of 
the Ultramontanes pure and simple. 

And mark well that the very form and nature of the Vati- 
can definition — now the corner-stone of the whole Boman 
Catholic creed — the difficulty of finding out real ex-cathedrd 
decrees, and their slippery condition, have caused this new 
division within the ClUirch. Here, then, we have a com- 
plete disproof of that boasted uniformity in believing, in the 
Church of Bome, which has attracted to her so many people 
impatient of the divine discipline of enquiry and responsi- 
bility. 

Where, amidst the disputes of the scholce theologorum, can 
the sincere and honest member of the Church find the certain 
voice of the living teacher, on which Rome predicates her 



Theory and Fact 321 

boast of pre-eminence over all Churches and her taunts 
against Protestantism. Is not the procedure of these 
eminent scholce a proof that they have no stronger certainty 
to offer than we *? Rome's claim to infallibility is all a pre- 
tence. It involves greater labour to find out, by the mini- 
mizing tests, when the pope means to be infallible, than to 
find out, by Scripture and history, whether his utterances 
are true or false. And when you have taken the trouble to 
discover the former, you must still go through the difficult 
process of enquiring into the latter. After all, it would ap- 
pear that a confiding world is to be still left in the dark as 
to the province and limit of that infallibility. The doctors to 
whom we would look for a quasi authoritative explanation 
are by no means at one. Some give us the minimum, others 
the maximum of papal authority. • 

But what does it matter ! Koman Catholic divines of 
whatever school have no longer any claim to represent the 
papacy in its doctrines. Theology has altogether lost its for- 
mer position. Strange contradiction 1 The scholce have to 
find out first the very existence and then the meaning of a 
papal decree, and, after all, what are their arduous labours 
and subtle distinctions worth in determining such a certainty 
of faith as the Koman Church claims and requires ? Nothing, 
absolutely nothing. " The question is simply now what the 
pope says. He can no longer speak by any agent whom it 
may hereafter be convenient to disavow ; this difficulty is 
one inseparable from the late dogma. It is no longer quod 
uhique, quod semper, quod ah omnibus which defines the 
Eoman faith, but quod hodie in Vaticano, a Domino Nostra 
Papa is declared authoritative. No disclaimers on the part 
of any Romish doctor, however eminent, can have any force 
except as his individual understanding of the papal posi- 

21 



322 Bomaft Catholicism. 

tion. It may be interesting to know what Dr. ISTewman, as 
a representative of English Romanism of a certain school, 
would like to think, but as a statement of the position of the 
Roman curia, nothing is gained from one or from a hundred 
similar treatises. That is the inherent fault of a monarchical 
despotism. In being reduced to a single will and head, it 
necessarily loses the efficient aid of all who are not ready to 
become the blind instruments of that centralized power. 
Manning and Newman are both out of the game. They can 
neither shape the policy nor bind the conscience of the Vati- 
can." — (Hartford Churchman.) 

The fact is, as Mr. Gladstone forcibly proves, '^ the entire 
Christian religion, since the Vatican decree, is in the last 
resort placed in the breast of the pope.^^ As the infallible and 
absolute monarch of the* Church, he is neither bound by the 
definitions of the Church in faith and morals, for they are 
another Scripture and may be interpreted by him absolutely ; 
nor by the Canon Law, for he is the supreme ecclesiastical 
lawgiver and may abolish or suspend any law at any time ; 
nor by former declarations of the popes, for he will say that 
they did not speak ex cathedra ; nor by the moral and divine 
law, by the commandments of God, or by the rules of the 
Gospel, for of all these the pope himself, by himself, is the 
supreme judge, without appeal. 

The maximizing divines, as a matter of course, admit this 
thesis, but deny its injurious consequences by maintaining 
that the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit. They are not 
ashamed to avow their faith in this distasteful doctrine in its 
obvious meaning, nay they glory in having a living, easily 
accessible and permanent oracle at Rome to whom they 
willingly and cheerfully submit their mental liberty. They 
rejoice in being the blind and docile servants of the pope. 



Theory and Fact. 323 

But the minimizing theologians are of different opinion. 
They labour with all their might to retain some shred of 
their spiritual liberty. They are willing to believe the pope ; 
but only when he speaks the truth as contained in the 
deposit of faith. They are ready to obey him, but not 
blindly, and only when they can see that his commands are 
not contrary to the moral or divine law, or to the dictates 
of their own conscience. Hence they are at hand with their 
limitations and conditions by which they endeavour to 
restrain the absolutism of papal infallibility. Yain en- 
deavour ! 

It would be utterly useless to break a lance with the maxi- 
mizers. They are in favour with the pope and are in power. 
They embrace the dogma to its fullest extent, and, filled 
with fanatical pride, are deaf to fair argumentation. 

We enter, therefore, the field with the minimizing theolo- 
gians, and if we prove that their ground is untenable, we are 
entitled to conclude a fortiori that the position of the maxi- 
mizers is also indefensible. Of course, we do not intend to 
review their arguments in favour of papal infallibility \ we 
have done this in the preceding lectures ; here we shall con- 
sider only those limitations and conditions, by which they 
endeavour to prove that the Vatican decree has not changed 
the constitution of their Church, and that they have not lost 
their mental liberty by submission to it. 

Dr. Newman says, " I begin with a remark which sug- 
gests the drift of all I have to say about it (the Vatican 
definition). It is this : that so difficult a virtue is faith, 
even with the special grace of Uod, in proportion as the 
reason is exercised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly to 
propositions verified to us neither by reason nor experience, 
but depending for their reception on the word of the Church 



324 Roman Catholicism, 

as God's oracle, that she has ever shown the utmost care to 
contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense 
of propositions of which she demands this absolute recep- 
tion." 

Yes, faith is a difficult virtue in the Roman system, and 
the difficulty is a fundamental one. It lies in the impossi- 
bility of giving a logical explanation of their act of faith. 
Every intelligent and conscientious Roman Catholic feels it. 
His God-given reasoning powers urge him to find out a 
logical genesis of his faith, and in attempting to do so, he is 
in a maze of perplexities. On the one hand, he is commanded 
to believe all the tenets of his Church, with an absolute cer- 
tainty — without any fear of doubt whatever. He must 
believe that every single dogma defined by the Church and 
proposed for his belief is contained in Scripture and tradi- 
tion, although he does not see it therein. On the other hand, 
his rational instinct is uneasy and dissatisfied; he would 
willingly enquire into the logical grounds of his belief, but 
he is afraid of yielding to the suggestions of doubt which are 
forbidden to him under pain of eternal damnation. Yes, he 
might lose his faith, and how then could he be saved 1 This 
terror prevents him from pursuing the truth and nothing but 
the truth, let the consequences be what they may. He 
throws himself on the bosom of a Church which informs him 
that he can and must believe in her with an absolute cer- 
tainty, because she is infallible. He becomes her vassal, and 
imagines that he has found rest ; and if there his logical 
instincts could be silenced, he would slumber on quietly to 
the end of his days. Many, no doubt, have succeeded in con- 
tracting their views and mental aspirations within the hori- 
zon of the Church — content to be always in spiritual swad- 
dling-clothes and intellectual leading-strings. But it is 



Theory and Fact. 325 

unnatural thus to subdue the inquisitive nature of a think- 
ing and rational being. He feels uneasy on the couch of 
Church-infallibility. He knows that there is something 
wanting to complete the logical genesis of his faith \ that 
there must be something above and beyond the authority of 
the Church to invest his faith with absolute certainty and 
to dispel every apprehension of doubt. On what is this 
authority logically based % On what else does he base it, on 
what else can he base it but on the historical evidence of 
Christianity itself? This evidence, however, gives him only 
a moral or historical certainty. Where, then, is the logical 
foundation of absolute certainty for his act of faith % It is 
this discrepancy between the premisses and conclusion in the 
eflfort to explain the logical origin of absolute certainty in the 
act of faith, which renders the Roman Catholic believer 
restless and dissatisfied and causes him to shrink from any 
searching enquiry. There is a something in the conclu- 
sion for which the premisses do not account. 

No wonder then that Dr. Newman should feel the diffi- 
culty of an act of faith. Has he obtained more certainty in 
the Church of Rome than he possessed before he joined it % 
Logically, it is impossible that he could. 

It LS on account of this difficulty, he thinks, that the 
Church " has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as 
far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of proposi- 
tions, of which she demands this absolute reception." History 
does not confirm this assertion. On the contrary, we find 
that Rome from age to age has continually developed and 
added new dogmas of faith to the already existing ones. 
Compare the creed of Pius lY. with the ancient confessions 
of faith, and you will be convinced of this truth. She has 
alwcays been prolific in dogmatic development. How ofteu 



326 Roman Catholicism, 

has the circle of open questions been contracted by new 
dogmatic definitions ! Instead of contracting, the Church of 
Rome enlarged the circle of articles of faith, even when it was 
not necessary to do so. What necessity was there for the 
dogma of the immaculate conception 1 What urgent need 
demanded the definition of papal infallibility, since the 
Church had done well without it for eighteen hundred years 1 
Does this show a desire, on the part of the Church, " to 
contract the range" of articles of faith ? 

And since the popes were the principal cause of multi- 
plying dogmatic definitions and decrees before 1870, what 
guarantee have we that, in the future, they will take into 
consideration the " difficulty" of the virtue of faith, and 
speak less frequently ex cathedra ? None whatever. Formerly 
generations, even centuries passed away, in which the pon- 
tiffs issued no dogmatic bull or encyclical. But can you 
imagine that, in the time to come, there will be a single pope 
who will not more than once, during his pontificate, speak 
ex cathedra, if for no other purpose, than to enjoy the sweet 
exercise of his authority, and to remind the world that he is 
endowed with the gift of infallibility? Moreover, as in the 
very nature of things there will constantly arise new doubts 
and difficulties within the Church, will it not be necessary 
for this permanent living oracle to be uninterruptedly 
engaged in solving and subduing them by his authoritative 
voice 1 Besides, can we suppose that there will be no popes 
who, " intoxicated with their solitary greatness," will not be 
vain enough to render their pontificate memorable by some 
great dogmatic event 1 

The remark, therefore, of Dr. Newman, that the Church 
has always shown the strongest desire to contract the range 
of the de fide propositions is not only without foundation in 



Theory and Fact. 327 

history, but is also illusory as a basis of hope that the papacy 
will pursue a cautious policy hereafter. Yet, he grounds his 
justification of the minimizing process of the theologians 
upon this " difficulty of the act of faith," and on the con- 
sequent frugality in definition on the part of the Church. 
He says : " She only speaks when it is necessary to speak ; 
but hardly has she declared magisterially som^ general prin- 
ciple, when she sets her theologians to work to explain her 
meaning in the concrete, by strict interpretation of its word- 
ing, by the illustration of its circumstances, and by the re- 
cognition of exceptions, in order to make it as tolerable as 
possible, and as little as possible a temptation to self-willed, 
independent, or wrongly-educated minds." And both here 
and at the end of this section of his pamphlet he pleads very 
hard for "a wise and gentle minimism" 

We cannot help loving the gentle and charitable dis- 
position of Dr. Newman, or feeling deeply for him ; for his 
is the spirit of Christianity, not of Rome. The house has 
been set on fire by the pope and his advisers, but is it pro- 
bable that men like Dr. Newman will be able to extinguish 
the flames by their '^ wise and gentle minimism *?" And even 
if they succeeded now, is it not certain that future popes 
would again and again apply the incendiary torch to the 
edifice of the Church in many an ill-considered bull 1 Is not 
this minimism a faint exercise of mental liberty ? Kome looks 
with suspicion on any symptoms of such liberty, since they 
may be the beginnings of rebellion. Minimism is not in 
favour with the popes, for it has always been their aim 
to have their authority maximized. The maximising, not 
the minimizing, theologians are successful in their career, so 
far as honour and preferment in the Church are concerned. 

Dr. Newman seems to hope for much from the labours 



328 Roman Catholicism, 

of the scholce theologorum, as if they could lighten the 
burden of faith with which the popes afflict the Church or 
save the little spark of mental liberty which their absolut- 
ism threatens to extinguish altogether. Yain hope ! The 
opinions of these scholce, from the very nature of the papal 
system, have no authoritative value j for all authority resides 
henceforth in the pope alone. Opinions which prevail 
to-day may be denounced to-morrow at the Jiat of the Vatican. 
Convictions that may be the result of the laborious and pro- 
found studies of a life-time, may be anathematised with a 
suddenness that surpasses expectation, and men may be 
compelled, on pain of excommunication, to subscribe to doc- 
trines which they formerly were permitted strenuously to 
oppose. However valuable, therefore, the opinions of the 
scholce may have been in former times, they are valueless 
now that the Vatican decree has become the corner-stone of 
the Church. Besides, if the gift of infallibility has been 
bestowed upon the popes to enlighten the world in an acces- 
sible and absolutely certain way, why should there be any 
necessity of interposing the scholce between the people and 
the papal utterances 1 Will the plain common sense of men 
be benefited by the " scrutinizing vigilance, acuteness, or 
subtlety of the scholce theologorum .?" The theologians are 
unintelligible, save to the initiated, for they have a method, 
a style, and a phraseology of their own. None but theolo- 
gians are able to understand theologians. Does not all this 
tend to keep the people in darkness and ignorance ? 

Indeed, we believe that, in the future, there will be a 
dearth of really profound theologians in the Church of Rome. 
Since the Vatican definition theology has ceased to be a 
science. " Papal infallibility becomes not only a soft cushion 
on which the wearied or perplexed mind, as well of the 



Theory and Fact, 329 

layman as of the theologian, may repose softly, and abandon 
itself to undisturbed slumber, but it supplies to the intel- 
lectual world in religious matters what our steam convey- 
ances and electrical wires supply to the material world in 
the saving of time and labour." (The Pope and the Council, 
p. XXV.) Undoubtedly, this dogma must cripple all intel- 
lectual movement and scientific activity among Roman 
Catholic theologians. 



LECTUEE X. 

THE VATICAN DEOBEE CHANGES THE RELATION OF 
THE PAPACY TO THE CHURCH AND THE STATE. 

AFTEE/ tlie preliminary remarks which we reviewed in 
our last lecture, Dr. Newman proceeds to minimize 
the Vatican definition. If we mistake not, his aim is to 
show that it is not such a formidable thing as others suppose 
it to be ; that it neither introduces a new constitution, nor 
contracts the scope of legitimate enquiry, nor deprives Eoman 
Catholic churchmen of their mental liberty. 

It is maintained that nothing is changed in the constitu- 
tion of the Church; for the definition declares that '' the 
pope has the same infallibility which the Church has" 

We answer that much is changed by this very assertion 
of the bull Pastor jEternus. First, infallibility is claimed as 
before, but it is differently lodged, being transferred from the 
Church to the pope. Prior to 1870, neither the episcopate 
alone, nor the pope alone, was considered infallible, but both 
together. Now the pope's definitions in themselves, without 
the consent of the Church, are irreformable and must be 
received with an absolute and unwavering faith. The old 
Catholic rule of faith, enunciated by Yincentius Lirinensis, 
has virtually been abandoned, and papal dictation put in its 
place. The Church is a body, and the pope is now to be 
believed to be the moving soul oi that body. 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 331 

Who can fail to perceive that this definition transferred 
the highest power from a collective body to an individual % 
It ceases to be the same power. That which may, let us say 
for argument's sake, be safely committed to the whole 
Church, and the exercise of which is guarded by the inevitable 
conditions of action. in a collective body, becomes an utterly 
different thing when in the custody of a single person. Is 
it the same thing in civil authority whether the supreme 
power is held to reside in a nation or in an absolute monarch % 
Is there no change when it is declared that henceforth all 
power shall reside in an autocrat % 

All the former bulwarks provided in the definitions of the 
Church are swept away. The energy of conscience, the 
power of immutable Scripture, the guiding light of past 
history, the elimination of individual interests and errors, 
the correction of one set of views by another — all are gone. 
It is absurd to say that an individual prelate can or will con- 
centrate these indispensable factors in himself. ^ 

Will any one venture to maintain that the head of the 
Church, since the Vatican council, stands on the same foot- 
ing in regard to princes and states ? He has taken the place 
of the Church in regard to them. However inconvenient 
and troublesome the Church's power may have been at times, 
still it was not impossible to adjust differences by compromise 
and to manage national Churches in a national spirit. In 
future it will become more and more difficult to do so. Every 
Church, and consequently every government, is directly and 
immediately subject to the interference of a foreign spiritual 
potentate who claims infallibility. How can governments 
make treaties with him, since they do not stand on a footing 
of equality with him ? How can a government negotiate 
with a sovereign who claims ini'allibility and demands abso« 
late obedience) 



33S Roman Catholicism. 

The assertion of the pope's infallibility, therefore, by the 
Vatican decrees, does make a serious change in the relations 
of Church and State. It places the pope in a different aspect 
towards the world. It places him in an altered attitude to all 
councils whatsoever, whether national or general. It effects 
this just as completely as the rise of the Koman emperors 
changed the power of the Roman senate. It is so regarded 
by the world in general ; it must be felt to be so by the 
pontiffs themselves. 

. The phrase, then, of the Vatican decree, that " the pope 
has that same infallibility which the Church has," has intro- 
duced an entirely new constitution. It means that the pope 
is the Church — la Chiesa sono io. 

And as Roman Catholics themselves do not pretend to 
maintain that the elevation of the pope to his exalted dignity 
changes his human nature, it is evident that his dogmatic de- 
finitions and decrees will greatly depend on his personal cha- 
racter. Does not the history of the papacy prove this fact 
beyond the shadow of a doubt 1 We cannot help perceiving 
that the personal character of each pope is stamped upon the 
letters and bulls which he issued. If we had no other means 
for acquiring a knowledge of his character, these productions 
would be a sufficient key to disclose it to our view. Any 
student ofhistorymay easily form an estimate of the charac- 
ters of Hildebrand, Alexander III., Innocent III., Boniface 
VIII., and others from the official documents they issued. 
Their previous training and prejudices appear between the 
lines. If, for instance, they were monks, we may easily dis- 
cover by the study of their writings to what order of monks 
they belonged, and by what monkish superstitions they were 
swayed. 

But we need not go to past history in order to verify our 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State, 333 

remark. The long pontificate of Pius IX. amply proves how 
his personal character influences all his speeches, letters, 
encyclicals, and bulls. Pius is anxious to maintain his 
temporal dominion ; hence the many documents bearing on 
this subject. He is permeated with an extraordinary de- 
votion to the Virgin Mary ; from her he expects succour in 
his troubles j hence his dogmatic decree of the Immaculate 
Conception. He is superstitious to a high degree ; hence the 
winking madonnas, the multiplication of sacred shrines, the 
numerous pilgrimages, the miraculous relics and images, and 
the indulgences which he grants for idle and superstitious 
observances. He thinks a great deal of the piety of the 
middle ages, for he characterizes them as the Ages of Faith ; 
his thoughts live and dwell in those ages and he longs to have 
the powers restored which the popes then enjoyed j hence 
the syllabus with its corresponding encyclicals and bulls, 
which brought to light again the " rusty armour of the 
middle ages." He is an extreme Ultramontane, and per- 
sonally believes in papal infallibility ; hence the Yatican 
Decrees in which he imposed his rigid faith upon the whole 
world. 

The personal character of the popes, henceforth to form an 
important element in shaping the creed of the Church of 
Home, will be influenced to a considerable extent by the imme- 
diate surroundings of the papal chair. The pope, in issuing 
dogmatic decrees, will be guided by his counsellors. Are 
these to be trusted ? Their choice depends on his personal 
predilections, and they may be retained or dismissed accord- 
ing to his capricious whims. Well-meaning Koman Catho- 
lics confess that there is a vast amount of intellectual and 
moral malaria in the atmosphere of the Yatican. And can 
we suppose that this noxious vapour will not insinuate it- 
self into the judgment of the pope ? 



334 Roman Catholicism. 

Yet since Cliurcli infallibility has been merged into papal 
infallibility, everything in faith and morals must emanate 
from this centre. Henceforth the whole Church will be- 
come Italianized. Attachments to national usage will be in 
bad odour at Rome ; Saxon sincerity, uprightness, and inde- 
pendence will be looked upon with suspicion ; Oriental rites 
and discipline will be interfered with as savouring of the in- 
dependence of schismatic times gone by. Conformity to 
Italian observances will be introduced wherever practicable ; 
Italian casuistry will become the moral standard of the 
whole Church \ and deceit and untruthfulness will be en- 
grafted on the character of other nations. 

As Daniel O'Connell bequeathed his heart to Rome and 
his body to his native land ; so the heart of every staunch 
Roman Catholic belongs to a foreign potentate, whilst he may 
give the life-service of his worthless body to the country 
which he calls his own. I cannot see how genuine Christian 
patriotism can dwell in the l)reast of one whose heart beats 
supremely for Rome. The sincere Roman Catholic must ad- 
mit a twofold loyalty — loyalty to Rome, loyalty to his own 
country — and to which of these two will he be likely to give 
the preference, whenever they come into conflict % Surely, 
loyalty to the pope he is obliged to believe in as supreme, 
must and will prevail ; for the pope is his Church and the 
Church stands in the stead of Christ. Whoever will not 
hear the Church, Le, the pope, let him be as a heathen man 
and a publican. He must obey God, ^.e. the pope, rather 
than man. 

Such, then, is the spirit of modern Roman Catholicism. 
The substitution of papal infallibility for Church infallibilty 
— what else is the Vatican definition % — has indeed changed 
considerablv the civil status of Roman Catholic citizens. Do 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State, 335 

they deny that the pope is a foreign spiritual monarch ? Do 
they deny that they are in conscience bound to obey him 
unreservedly, and to believe, with an absolute certainty, his 
decrees in faith and morals % Who can authoritatively define 
the domain of his power and prerogatives but the pope him- 
self ? Do not all the questions of faith and morals include 
the whole of life, all the relations of man to God and to 
society % Does not the pope's supreme authority include an 
universal guardianship over the legislature, the laws, and 
government of every country % No staunch and intelligent 
E/Oman Catholic will venture to limit these questions, or to 
give them a negative answer. The minimizing of Dr. New- 
man and others will not avail here, for it is not practical. 
It is too subtle and ethereal for the Roman Catholic public, 
and it is in disfavor with Kome. When the pope speaks he 
means to be obeyed, and that under pain of the severest cen- 
sures. The paragraph on the authority of the conscience in 
Dr. Newman's pamphlet is sublime music to Protestant ears, 
although it sounds strange to term the conscience the true 
Vicar of Christ. The pope will scarcely approve of such lan- 
guage. He will tell Dr. Newman that there is such a thing 
as an erroneous conscience which requires to be corrected ; 
that the conscience must be informed by the truth ; that he, 
the pope, is the infallible source of all moral and religious 
truth in the Church, and that therefore the conscience must 
be modeled after papal definitions and decisions. Dr. New- 
man's reasoning is only applicable to solitary cases here and 
there. The general Eoman Catholic public forms practical 
judgments for the guidance of its conscience from the plain 
and obvious wording of papal encyclicals. Most of the 
members know nothing of the "acuteness of the scholca 
theoiogoTumy' for it is beyond their mental reach. This 



336 Roman Catholicism. 

minimizing process in matters where papal decrees conflict 
with the laws and orders of the State appears to me, on the 
part of some, like the despairing cry of a patriotic heart ; and, 
on the part of others, like the cunning act of throwing fine 
dust into the adversary's eyes, as a method of defence. But 
it is of no avail in either case. The pope, although he may 
approve of the latter proceeding, where policy and prudence 
demand it, will severely censure and condemn the conscien- 
tious wail of patriotism in anguish. 

There is no need of going back to past history ; do we not 
daily witness the pope's interference in the administration of 
civil governments, and the constant conflict between papal 
decrees and civil laws? What else is the bull In Coena 
Domini, the Syllabus, with its corresponding authoritative 
documents, and other equally notorious bulls and encyclicals, 
but so many missiles from the Yatican hurled into the legiti- 
mate domain of the State ? 

The contest between the papacy and the empire is raging 
fiercely in Germany, and why? Is it because the State 
tramples under foot the laws of God and the rights of man ? 
No ; but because it disregards the arbitrary enactments of the 
pope j because it demands freedom of action in its own pro- 
per sphere, untrammelled by the interference of any foreign 
potentate ; because it wishes to remove all occasion of dis- 
loyalty in any class whatever of its subjects ; because it 
desires to give fair play and mete out equal justice to every 
citizen ; because it demands the same liberty which, strange 
to say, the pope has granted to other governments. In point 
of fact the German empire concedes to its Roman Catholic 
subjects liberties and privileges which are denied them in 
other countries. Whence, then, that fierce struggle? The 
secret of the whole contest is that the Ultramontanes of Ger- 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State, 337 

many look back to tlie flesh-pots of the Middle Ages, and 
cannot brook the idea of a Protestant Kaiser at the head of 
the German empire. They are unable to dissociate in their 
mind the idea of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire from 
the imperial dignity of Germany. In that empii^e the pope 
ruled supreme ; but now the hated heretic is invested with 
the imperial purple, Hinc illce lachrymce. 

Let us pass over to other countries. Scarcely one remains 
undisturbed by papal interference. The pope fulminates 
excommunications without number against the Italians; 
first, because they exercised their right of choosing their own 
form of government, and yielded to their patriotic aspirations 
on behalf of national unity and freedom from clerical mis- 
government and vassalage ; and afterwards, principally be- 
cause they disbanded that formidable army of the pope and 
inciters of rebellion, I mean the numerous religious orders, 
those pest-houses of laziness and nurseries of superstition, 
confiscated their immense wealth, and converted it to national 
purposes. Now, why were the Vatican thunders more for- 
midable when launched against Italy than in similar cases % 
When, for instance, the French drove Louis Philippe from 
his throne and established a republic, the pope blessed them 
and accepted the aid of their armies. When Louis Napoleon 
founded his throne on the ruins of the republic, the pope 
was his friend and called him the Eldest Son of the Church. 
Whence, then, his wrath when the Italians founded their 
kingdom ? Because the papal states were absorbed. And 
had the inhabitants of these states no rights like other 
nations? Could they not change their government when 
they thought that a change would better their condition 1 
The pope says No; and why? Because, forsooth, they are 
the property of the Church, the paUimony of St. Peter. Yv"e 

22 



333 Roman Catholicism, 

do not blame the pope for endeavouring to keep his kingdom; 
but let him do so by lawful temporal means. He has no 
right to use spiritual and ecclesiastical weapons to secure 
earthly sovereignty ; remembering that his kingdom is not of 
this world. His subjects stand to him in the same relation- 
ship as other peoples towards their sovereigns, and in no 
other. And as he does not venture to employ against others 
the severest weapons in the hands of the Church for changing 
their political and civil relations, why should he use them 
against his own subjects, when they prefer contributing their 
share to the unification of Italy and the welfare of their 
common country % Why does he deem it his duty to employ 
his ecclesiastical censures only in favour of himself, and not 
also in behalf of other dethroned sovereigns ? 

The fact is, the temporalities of the Church constitute one 
of the principal objects of care and solicitude to the pope and 
his hierarchy. This circumstance must be born in mind in 
order to understand fully the interference of the infallible 
papacy in secular governments. None will deny that the 
Church of Rome possesses, to an astonishing degree, the faculty 
of amassing property and wealthy and the more she amasses 
the more she craves. It is on the score of the temporalities 
of the Church more than on any other, that the State and 
the papacy will clash. There is a mixed domain. The pope and 
his bishops claim independent, exclusive, and absolute control 
over all, without interference on the part of the laity, while the 
State, in the interest of the whole country, refuses to permit 
the accumulation of Church property beyond a certain limit, 
nor permit its use for any purposes other than those which 
either directly or indirectly tend to the advancement of the 
people. Therefore the State demands an account of the 
manner in which the temporalities are employed, so as to 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 339 

secure their legitimate use. Hence the thunders of the 
Vatican are let loose against those unfortunate governments 
which dare to interfere with the temporalities of the Church. 

We know of no other government that would have shown 
greater moderation in dealing with the pope than the Italian. 
The ^^ Statute of Guarantees'^ in which provision is made for 
the free action, security, and independence of the pope, dis- 
plays lavish generosity. Moreover, the government, desirous 
of establishing " a free Church in a free State," gave up all 
the ecclesiastical rights which it formerly possessed, reserving 
to itself only a certain amount of control over the temporali- 
ties of the Church. Yet the pope is implacable, he has 
nothing but censures against the government, its abettors 
and adherents. 

I shall not speak further of the constant interference of 
the pope in the government and laws of other countries. 
Everywhere you find him complaining of the violation of his 
rights. And what rights are they % Are they inherent in 
Christianity % By no means. They are rights established 
by himself, emanating from priestly ambition and pride, 
such as complete exemption of the priesthood from the 
jurisdiction of the tribunals of the land, exemption from 
taxation, the exclusion of the laity from the administration 
of Church-temporalities, exclusive control in all matters per- 
taining to education, &c., &c. These quasi rights vary con- 
siderably in difierent countries. Thus in purely Koman 
Catholic countries the pope claims the right of persecuting 
the Protestants, while in Protestant countries he clamours 
for religious liberty. As he has been in the past, so he will 
be in the future, in constant embroglio with every govern- 
ment in the world where he has a considerable number of 
faithful adherents. 



340 Roman Catholicism. 

And can it possibly be supposed that the pope's voice will 
have no influence upon their loyalty and general conduct ] 
Since the Vatican council, the pope's voice is the Church's 
voice. There is consequently no alternative for Roman 
Catholic sujects but to obey their infallible chief. It would 
be preposterous to maintain that the Vatican decree effects 
no change in the status of Roman Catholics. 

But this transfer of infallibility from the Church to the 
pope, or the complete identification of Church and papacy, 
produces its greatest change in the standing of the episcopate. 
Formerly, the gift of infallibility was believed to reside in 
the episcopal body, but now the '^ ex cathedra definitions of 
the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not 
from the consent of the Church." Formerly, the bishops were 
believed to have a jurisdiction of their own in their diocese, 
but now the pope "enjoys ordinary and immediate power both 
over each and all Churches, and over each and all the pastors 
and the faithful." Each bishop, therefore, is a mere creature 
of the pope, depending altogether on his will ; the pope may 
interfere in the administration of his see whenever he pleases 
and as he pleases ; nothing can [protect the bishop from the 
ill-will of the Roman curia, or the intrigues of the pope's 
favourites. His influence and vote in the councils of the 
Church amount to zero. His manhood and freedom have 
departed forever ; he is nothing but a serf of the great pope 
of Rome. It is only necessary to flatter the slave and give 
him power over his fellow-slaves, and he will be a hard master 
indeed. Despotism in the head begets despotism in the 
officers. 

We pity the poor people who, without knowing it and 
without even as yet feeling it, have thus changed the Church 
for the pope. Without doubt this despotic system has great 



Relation of Papacy to Church and State. 341 

vitality, and will probably continue to trouble the world for 
generations and ages to come. And why % Because these 
slaves are willing slaves. They are well cared for, and fed 
with a certain kind of spiritual food that satisfies them ; and 
therefore they become attached to their masters. Their 
spiritual life is devoid of uneasiness and trouble. They be- 
lieve the food they receive to be good ; they do not care 
whence it comes, whether from the Bible, or tradition, or 
the Church, or the pope. "We do not deny that Rome has a 
system of doctrine still fruitful (with all its drawbacks) in 
instruction, consolation, and inward renewal. And as long 
as the priests are faithful in feeding the people with this 
doctrine, Rome will continue to be a power in the world. 

But there is every probability that, in the succession of 
popes, this deposit of doctrines will grow more and more cor- 
rupt, so that finally it will be difficult to detect in it the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity. And we do not see 
how, since the Vatican council, the head of the Church could 
be reformed, if it should again become as corrupt as in the 
middle ages, especially during the long schism of anti-popes. 
Would a council like that of Constance be able to remedy the 
evil % No \ such a council would be altogether contrary to 
the Vatican system. The Church has, no power to rescue the 
papacy from the perdition brought about by its own corrup- 
tion. 



LECTUEE XI. 

REVIEW OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF PAPAL INFALLI- 
BILITY, 

LET us briefly review some other remarks of Dr. New- 
man. Comparing the infallibility of the Church and 
the pope, he says : "As by the teaching of the Church is 
understood, not the teaching of this or that bishop, but their 
united voice, and a council is the form the Church must take 
in order that all men may recognize what in fact she is 
teaching on any point in dispute, so in like manner, the 
pope must come before us in some special form or posture, if 
he is to be understood to be exercising his teaching office, 
and that form is called ex cathedrd.^^ 

We remark, first, that in the Roman system the infalli- 
bility of the Church is not confined to a council ; not only 
the ecclesia congregata in concilio, but also the ecclesia 
dispersa is infallible ; and if one can find out the uni- 
versal consent of the latter in regard to any doctrine, he 
is bound, according to Roman Catholic teaching, to hold it 
SiB defide. If, therefore, the pope's infallibility be the same 
as that of the Church, and if the ex cathedra utterances cor- 
respond to the decrees of the council, he should not only be 
infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, but all his other utter- 
ances and manifestations touching the faith, made in his 
public capacity, should be believed as de fide, otherwise the 



Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility, 343 

identity of his infallibility with that of the Church is not 
complete. This identity means that, as the faith of the 
Church, whether dispersed or assembled in council, should be 
the faith of its individual members, so the pope's faith, 
whether uttered ex cathedra, or ascertained in any other 
manner, should henceforth be the faith of the Roman 
Catholics. 

Indeed, if the pope's infallibility be admitted at all as a 
rule of faith, it must be unconditional and unlimited by any 
subtle terms within which theologians may desire to confine 
it ; in a word, it must be personal, like the attributes of the 
Deity, otherwise it will be utterly worthless for the purpose 
for which it is said to have been given. Whether they wish 
it or not, they cannot avoid making it a 'purely personal 
attribute. Their doctrine of investing only the ex cathedra 
definitions with infallibility does not mend the case ; for it 
is left to himself to say when he speaks ex cathedra, and thus 
it becomes a perpetual personal power lodged in the man 
himself. 

Moreover, it requires to be unlimited in regard to the 
matters it defines and decrees. If they say that it is confi^ned 
to religious matters, they must also invest the pope with 
power to draw the line between secular and religious ques 
tions, and does not such a power make the domain of in 
fallibility practically without limit ? Roman Catholic theo- 
logians waste their ingenuity and lose their time in mini- 
mizing the Vatican dogma, and inventing limitations in order 
to conceal or efiace its obnoxious features. We wonder that 
they do not see that their labour is in vain. In spite of 
their " wise and gentle minimism," the pope must and will 
claim and exercise a personal infallibility, untrammeled by 
any conditions which they may endeavour to impose. 



344 Roman Catholicism, 

" The distinction between a judgment pronounced ex 
cathedra^ and a merely occasional or casual utterance is, 
indeed, a perfectly reasonable one, not only in the case o^ 
the pope, but of any bishop or professor. In other words, 
every one whose office it is to teach can, and will at times, 
speak off-hand and loosely on dogmatic and ethical questions, 
whereas, in his capacity of a public and official teacher, he 
pronounces deliberately, and with serious regard to the con- 
sequences of his teaching. No reasonable man will pretend 
that the remarks made by a pope in conversation are defini- 
tions of faith. But beyond this the distinction has no mean- 
ing. When a pope speaks publicly on a point of doctrine, 
either of his own accord, or in answer to questions addressed 
to him, he has spoken ex cathedra^ for he was questioned as 
pope, and successor of other popes, and the mere fact that he 
has made his declaration publicly and in writing makes it an 
ex cathedra judgment. This holds good equally of every 
bishop. The moment any accidental or arbitrary condition 
is fixed, on which the ex cathedra nature of a papal decision 
is to depend, we enter the sphere of the private crotchets of 
theologians, such as are wont to be devised, simply to meet 
the difficulties of the system. Of such notions, one is as 
good as another ; they come and go, and are afterwards 
noted down. It is just as if one chose to say afterwards of 
a physician who had been consulted, and had given his 
opinion on a disease, that he had formed his diagnosis or 
prescribed his remedies as a private person, and not as a 
physician. As soon, therefore, as limitations are introduced, 
and the dogmatic judgments of the popes are divided into 
two classes, the ex cathedra and the personal ones, it is 
obvious that the sole ground for this arbitrary distinction lies 
in the fact that there are sure to be some inconvenient deci- 



Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility. 345 

sions of popes which it is desirable to exempt from the privi- 
leges of infallibility generally asserted in other cases. Thus, 
for instance,. Orsi maintains that Honorius composed the 
dogmatic letter he issued in reply to the Eastern patriarchs, 
and which was afterwards condemned as heretical by the 
sixth oecumenical council, only as a ' private teacher,' but the 
expression doctor privatus, when used of a pope, is like 
talking of wooden iron." {The Pope and the Council^ 
page 328.) 

Koman Catholics are not better off now than they were 
before the Vatican council. How will they distinguish 
between those definitions which are ex cathedra, and those 
which are not? Dr. Newman, continuing his comparison 
between papal infallibility, and the infallibility of the 
Church, says : " What is to be that moral cathedra, or teach- 
ing chair, in which the pope sits, when he is to be recognized 
as in the exercise of his infallible teaching ? The new defi- 
nition answers this question. He speaks ex cathedra, or 
infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the universal teacher; 
secondly, in the name, and with the authority of the Apostles; 
thirdly, on a point of faith and morals ; fourthly, with the 
purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and 
believe his decision." And then he proceeds to whittle 
down these conditions to the finest point, so that at last 
nothing tangible is left of the whole prerogative. 

First, then, in order to exercise his infallibility, the pope 
must speak " as the universal teacher." But when does he 
speak in that capacity ? Dr. Newman answers : " when he 
speaks to the whole world ; . . . . accordingly orders which 
issue from him for the observance of particular countries, or 
political or religious classes, have no claim to be the utter- 
a^ces of his infallibility." Where, then, was papal infallibility 



346 Roman Catholicism. 

before tlie fourteenth century ? " No single decree of a pope 
addressed to the whole Church is known for the first thousand 
years of Christian history, and even after the twelfth and 
thirteenth centuries the popes usually decided at councils on 
doctrinal questions. Boniface YIII/s bull Unrnn Sanctam, 
in 1303, is the first addressed to the whole Church." {The 
Pope and the Council, page 331.) Was the gift of papal in- 
fallibility lying dormant for thirteen centuries ? Were there 
no controversies to be settled, no heresies to be condemned, 
during that long period? The popes must have either 
neglected their duty, or not have been aware that they 
possessed the prerogative of inerrancy, or ignorant of the 
condition that they must address the whole Church in order 
to exercise the gift. Surely, the infallibilists will not maintain 
that the folios of papal writings before Boniface VIII. do not 
contain a grain of infallible teaching because they were not 
being addressed to the universal Church. This condition, 
therefore, of the ex cathedra decisions is not a test in regard 
to the past. 

The fact is, they found a vast number of papal wiitings 
and utterances highly obnoxious to, and subversive of, their 
infallibility system. They had to get rid of these at any cost. 
Hence their invention of the ex-cathedra distinction and the 
still further limitation of the ex-cathedra definitions by other 
conditions. But in their zeal to accommodate their new 
system to the past teaching of the popes they overshot the 
mark, and instead of fixing conditions that would eliminate 
only the obnoxious teaching, they inconsiderately threw 
overboard the whole in bulk. Perhaps they will give us a 
new edition of limiting conditions by which they may be 
enabled to save as much of the past as will suit their purposes. 

They must certainly modify this first condition consider- 



Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility. 347 

ably in order to bring it into unison with the rest of their 
system. If you compare the two Vatican decrees of the third 
and fourth chapters, you will find that the same " supreme 
power in things which belong to faith and morals " which in 
the third chapter is defined to be " ordinary and immediate 
both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the 
pastors and the faithful,'^ is declared in the fourth chapter to 
be endowed with infallibility. We are, therefore, of opinion 
that Dr. Newman is mistaken when he states that, accord- 
ing to the Vatican definition, the pope must address the 
whole Church in order to exercise the gift of infallibility. He 
is the universal teacher, not only when he issues his bulls 
and encyclicals to the whole Church, but also when he 
addresses, in his public capacity, each Church, each pastor, 
each faithful Catholic. The tenor of both chapters combined 
has evidently this meaning. Indeed, if he has any relation 
at all to particular Churches, individual pastors and faithful, 
it is that of universal pastor and teacher. It is only on 
account of this office that they apply to him, obey and believe 
him. Whenever, therefore, he addresses particular countriest 
Churches, or individuals, he discharges the office of pastor 
and doctor of all Christians — omnium Christianorum pastoris 
et doctoris munere fungens. It would be unreasonable to dis- 
tinguish between his public acts, considering some of them 
ex cathedra and binding and others as quite open to debate 
and dispute. To have a mere universal teacher endowed 
with infallibility would be absurd. If there be any need of 
an infallible teacher, he is needed in concreto, that is, for 
individual cases and wdint^, particular Churches and countries. 
Such a mere universal infallibility might do well for the 
closet of the speculative theologian, but it would be too subtle 
and utterly useless for the practical guidance of Charches and 



348 Roman Catholicism. 

individuals. If we are not mistaken, Rome wants infallibility 
for practical purposes. The pope is pleased when he perceives 
that his teaching is believed by individual men and particular 
Churches. We conclude, therefore, that the first limitation 
of papal definitions, held by Dr. Newman and others, is not 
only against the nature of things, but conflicts also with the 
Vatican decrees. 

And if such be the case, they must admit all the public 
papal documents, of whatever age, even the strange teaching 
of the mediaeval popes, claiming the double sword, both 
secular and spiritual, over the whole Christian world, the 
power of deposing princes and of absolving subjects from the 
oath of allegiance, &c., &c. Indeed, they live and move in 
the middle ages, and would publicly admit the doctrines then 
taught by the popes, if modern society did not cry out against 
such teaching. In order to silence this cry, and to bring their 
theory, in some manner, into unison with the past, they are 
compelled to ignore history, or to falsify and adulterate it. 

The other limiting cpnditions, adduced by Dr. Newman 
and others, do not remove the vagueness of the ex-caihedra 
definitions, nor do they render the pope less arbitrary. Thus, 
in regard to the second condition, that he is required to speak 
" in the name and with the authority of the Apostles," we 
find that the words auctoritate Apostolicce Sedis — " by the 
authority of the Apostolic See" — occur in almost every docu- 
ment that is issued from the Vatican ; it is one of the prero- 
gatives which the pope sets forth with an emphasis and in 
which he constantly glories. He is pope only in so far as he 
speaks and acts " in the name and with the authority of the 
Apostles." Now, in all his public documents, whether addres- 
sed to the whole Church or to particular churches, countries, 
and individuals;^ he cannot but speak and act as pope. Yet, 



Review of Restrictions of Papal Infallibility. 349 

the minimizers do not admit all the encyclicals and bulls 
which emanate from him as pope, or auctoritate Aposteli, as 
infallible ex-cathedrd utterances; they would have to add to 
their creed all the absurd and monstrous doctrines of the 
mediaeval popes, for they were very fond of speaking auctori- 
tate Apostolicce, 

The third condition states that the pope must speak " on a 
point of faith or morals " — a useless limitation. Who but 
the pope has to draw the line between secular and religious 
matters? May not all human doctrines and actions be 
brought, in some shape or other, within the domain of faith 
or morals ? It is useless to sav that all his definitions must 
be contained in Scripture or tradition. Is he not the only 
infallible keeper and interpreter of this depositum ! He 
will tell you that, if his definitions are not explicitly ex- 
pressed in Scripture and tradition, they are implicitly con* 
tained therein and legitimately evolved therefrom, and that 
he alone is the proper judge of the legitimacy of this develop- 
ment. 

Nor is the fourth and last condition, namely, that ex-caihe- 
drd definitions must be given " with the purpose of binding 
every member of the Church to accept and believe his deci- 
sion," of any greater value as a limitation. If the force of this 
condition lies in the words *^ every member of the GJiurchy^ in 
that case it is equivalent to the first one. For as a ** universal 
teacher" " speaking to the whole world " he cannot but ad- 
dress ''every member of the Church." And if the force lies 
in the words " binding to accept and believe his decision," 
then every papal document would be ex-cathedrd, for he on 
every occasion demands to be obeyed and believed. Does he 
not teach or direct in every such document? Why 
should he do so, unless he wanted to be obeyed and be- 



350 Roman Catholicism. 

lieved? And do not the members addressed consider it 
their duty to believe him, and to act according to his com- 
mands % We find that the weaker the reasons are which the 
popes assign for their teaching, the stronger the language 
they use to enforce faith and obedience. 

Roman Catholic theologians feel that papal infallibility 
pure and simple, unconditional and unlimited by circumstan- 
ces, space, and time, would be an absurdity and a monstros- 
ity ; nay, that it would be blasphemy, because it gives to sin- 
ful and weak man an attribute of the deity. 

Hence their ingenuity in finding out conditions limiting 
this pretended gift. But they must find that all their labour 
is in vain. Every limitation involves their system in contra- 
dictions ; and the more conditions they make, the more ab- 
surdities they connect with the infallibility of their popes. 
They have no choice left them between infallibility pure and 
simple, and the denial of it altogether. If they think that 
they can prove their infallibility hypothesis by Scripture, 
they must admit it pure and simple ; for in the texts which 
they adduce on its behalf, there is no distinction between e«- 
cathedrd and not ex-cathedra decisions. And if the popes are 
seated in the chair of Peter or of Christ as '^ the Scribes and 
Pharisees were seated in the chair of Moses," then Roman 
Catholics must " observe and do all things whatsoever they 
shall say to them." All these limiting conditions are arbi- 
trary and of private invention, and every infallibilist there- 
fore is at liberty to form his own opinion, restricting this 
new dogma and manifesting it for his own individual use 
Unless they admit papal infallibility in all the fulness and 
perfection of the term, the new rule of faith is and re- 
mains among the dark and inexplicable problems of their 
theolop-v. 



■■■^■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■HHHH 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberrv Townshio. PA 16066 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 335 877 5 



